Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Protection of Citizens

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will discuss with appropriate persons and bodies in Northern Ireland the acceptability of an international force for the protection of citizens in Ulster which would, over a period of time, substantially replace the British Forces now operating there.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): No, Sir. The protection of the people of Northern Ireland is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and, given the nature of the security threat, in the absence of normal policing in certain areas an international force would provide a poor method of protection.

Mr. Hooley: Has my right hon. Friend noted that the Government of Southern Ireland are now taking extraordinary measures relating to security by the creation of a national militia? Does he agree that the British Army cannot and will not indefinitely maintain the peace in Ulster? Is it not time that we moved out of the present stalemate towards some new concept of maintaining law and order in that area?

Mr. Orme: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern in these matters. The key to the whole situation is policing. The Government do not see how a United Nations force could help. There is increasing co-operation between the Irish and the British Governments. We believe that is the best way to resolve the matter.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one way of saving lives and protecting property would be for the British Government to persuade the Eire Government to control the sale and to keep a close watch on the distribution of fertilisers and weedkillers which still cross the border in large quantities and are used in those horrendous proxy bombs which cause widespread devastation in Northern Ireland? Will he take steps to deal with that situation?

Mr. Orme: The Government are particularly concerned about the recent wave of explosions and proxy bombing. The Irish Government have been extremely co-operative and are stepping up their cooperation. Recent statements by the Taoiseach and the Foreign Secretary in the Republic have been more than helpful.

Mr. Lee: I hope that my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) is not intended to be the final answer. Is he aware that many of us are becoming increasingly impatient with the open-ended character of the commitment in Northern Ireland, having regard to all the circumstances and knowing, as I do, my right hon. Friend's difficulties in this matter?

Mr. Orme: We must keep an open mind. We want to create a situation in which the Army can withdraw from certain duties which could be undertaken in normal policing. We do not believe that an international force would be of help in this matter.

Captain Orr: Now that the Irish Republican Government appear to be setting up their own B Specials, would it not be sensible, instead of thinking about international forces, to think about employing the indigenous population more for their own security?

Mr. Orme: Such emotive phrases will not help to achieve the co-operation that we want from the Irish Republic.

Constitution

Mr. Nigel Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make arrangements for elections to a constitutional conference, convention or assembly to be held in the Province this year.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement indicating what success he has achieved in his most recent efforts to achieve power sharing in Northern Ireland.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is now taking to seek new power sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland; and with which groups he has has consultation.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making in his discussions with political parties and interested persons on the future arrangements for the Government of Northern Ireland, following the collapse of the Executive.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had with interested parties on the formation of a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the political parties, the organisations and individuals in Northern Ireland with whom he has had meetings regarding the future Government of Northern Ireland since the ending of the Executive.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Since the fall of the Northern Ireland Executive I have had an intensive series of discussions in Northern Ireland with leaders and members of all political parties represented in the Assembly and with many other groups and interests. A number of ideas have been put forward and the discussions are still continuing.
It is my intention to make a detailed report to the House before we rise for the recess.

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his remarks. I hope that the statement, when it is made before the recess, will give a firm date for such

elections and that that date will be in the relatively near future.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a real danger of losing the support of the British people for a policy which, however well meaning, is inclined at times to look rather like one of drift?

Mr. Rees: As matters stand, any election to an Assembly would have to take place under the Constitution Act. A large number of people who have been to see me do not wish this to happen, so they say.
I am not unaware of public opinion at home, which is my base and the base of most of us in this House. I have that very firmly in mind.

Mr. Mitchell: How many more by-elections will have to take place in Northern Ireland before the Government realise that the concept of power sharing, as we have had it before, is dead and they really start a radical re-think of alternative policy?

Mr. Rees: I have said that that by-election arose because I had no power to do aught else. The Government had advised the Queen to prorogue the Assembly—for good reasons. This still allows the Assembly members, in the short term, at any rate, to meet and talk together. I disagree completely with my hon. Friend. What I have found from all sorts of people who have come to see me is that though they may have disagreements about the form of power sharing, the one thing which has come out of the last year is an understanding on all sides of the community that both parts of the community must find a way of working together. Power sharing is not dead. It is the one thing which has stayed on since the fall of the Executive.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: However impatient hon. Members may become with our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland, is it not a fact that it is our moral duty to uphold the right of those fellow subjects to remain with Britain? Is it not also a fact that it is an interest of the United Kingdom that Northern Ireland should so remain? Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that when a new Assembly is elected, that Assembly should be a constitution-drafting body?

Mr. Rees: As to what the future may bring, in the state of discussions that I am having it is too early to say. The hon. Gentleman has a great knowledge of Northern Ireland, which he visits very frequently. He knows many people there. I say to him that membership of the United Kingdom is not a one-sided thing. It means duties and obligations, and it means a way of life. It works both ways. I believe that my job, on behalf of the House as Secretary of State, is to look after and to be responsible for people in Northern Ireland, whatever their beliefs and whatever their religions. But there are two communities in Northern Ireland, and we in this House can never forget that.

Mr. Duffy: As my right hon. Friend continues to have consultations, will he impress upon those who recently rejected political initiatives which London and Dublin thought reasonable and, moreover viable, that there is now a special onus on them to come forward with propositions that are not only seen to be viable but can command agreement?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is referring to what we all came to describe as the Irish dimension.

Mr. Duffy: And power sharing.

Mr. Rees: And power sharing—despite the failure. Indeed failure is the wrong word, because the Executive and the members of the Executive showed the people of Northern Ireland in a very fine way that the communities could work together. But the Executive did end. However, there is a realisation on the part of people in Northern Ireland—and increasingly, if I did not know it before, I realise this, as do many hon. Members—that it is out of Northern Ireland that a solution must come, based on the principles, in which we believe, for membership of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the wide range of options for the future which the right hon. Gentleman, very understandably, wishes to keep open, and in view of the transformed political situation in Northern Ireland, will he state whether the Government still remain obdurate in their rejection of integration?

Mr. Rees: The short answer is, "Yes." Nothing that I have ever seen, given the situation of the two communities in

Northern Ireland, has convinced or will ever convince me that integration is a way out of the problem of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: In the discussions which the Secretary of State has had with the various political groupings in Northern Ireland, has it been said to him by any of these groupings, or by a number of them combined, that they regard the present Northern Ireland Constitution Act as being dead and no longer viable in Northern Ireland? In regard to the statement that the Secretary of State proposes to make to the House before the recess, is it the intention of the Government to spell out in clear, unmistakable terms to all political parties in Northern Ireland the conditions under which Northern Ireland will be allowed to remain part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rees: On the first point, some of the people who have been to see me have told me firmly that they regard the Northern Ireland Constitution Act as dead. It may be that they are referring to parts of it, because there is a large amount of it which I should have thought would be extremely valuable for any form of Government in Northern Ireland. But I have pointed out two things. There is not only Section 2, which is a special form of power sharing; there is Section 1, which concerns the status of Northern Ireland. If the Act is dead, it is not just one section that is dead.
With regard to the future, as I am still discussing matters at present I think that I should keep the options open, as the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said. But I take the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). There are facts and realities of belonging to the United Kingdom. It will be one of the main jobs of the Government in the future, as the people of Northern Ireland meet and talk together, to put the facts of the situation forward. That is one of our major obligations

Mr. Latham: Whatever our personal views on this matter may be, is it not increasingly necessary to recognise the political fact that the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland clearly consider the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) and his friends as their main political spokesmen, and that we shall have to move forward on that basis?

Mr. Rees: I should be the last to deny—if one is facing realities—that in the Westminster elections, 11 out of 12 Northern Ireland Members came from one particular grouping. But I would also say that one thing which I have learned in the last month, when talking all day and every day, is that there are no monolithic groups in Northern Ireland and that there is a wide variety of views even within party groupings. This is another factor which is a new element, perhaps—certainly on the Protestant side—in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it wise to allow these elections to become entangled with probable Westminster elections?

Mr. Rees: With regard to probable Westminster elections, I am very pleased to say that that matter does not lie with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—but my hon. Friend can take it as read that I am not unaware of possibilities and will take them into account.

Mr. McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in his discussions with the various political parties in Northern Ireland he will tell them all, particularly the SDLP, that he considers as an absolute prerequisite to any form of power sharing a declaration of unequivocal support for the security forces in their fight against terrorism?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the last days of the Executive, members of the SDLP, like the rest of the Executive, made a very useful statement on policing. But we should not ignore the facts of history and the effects arising out of them—that there are not many Catholics in the police forces. Would that it were the other way. Indeed, until we achieve that it will be extremely difficult to have normal policing in Northern Ireland.
It is a very good idea, in the current situation in Northern Ireland, if people not only tell me things but tell each other things, because the people of Northern Ireland talking together and facing the facts together would be an excellent thing, in public as well as inside this House.

Mr. Carol Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current constitutional position in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The present constitutional position is that the Northern Ireland Assembly stands prorogued and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are being temporarily appointed to head the Departments and offices formerly headed by members of the Northern Ireland Executive and administration.

Mr. Mather: Before he makes his statement in July, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake a study of the strategic importance of Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom? In the context of the constitutional position, does he not agree that if power sharing is to be successful in any future constitution those who are sharing power must believe in that power—in fact, must believe in the Union?

Mr. Rees: Of course, the strategic position must be taken into account. I think that the hon. Gentleman would read with pleasure the oath that all members of the Executive took when they assumed office, which was to work for the good of Northern Ireland. I believe that they did just that, and that those who accepted power sharing accepted their position in Northern Ireland, which did not prevent their having an aspiration for the future which many people in this country have in other regards.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up a possible ambiguity arising from his earlier answer? Is it he who objects to holding elections under the Constitution Act because some of the people who have come to see him think that that Act is dead, or is it the people who have come to see him who object to holding the elections under the Act?

Mr. Rees: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his Shadow position? I answered the Question earlier in that way because I was being asked to carry out elections under the Constitution Act. It is people who have come to see me who have objected to the Constitution Act. It is only three or four weeks since the Assembly ended. Representatives of the parties in Northern Ireland told me pretty firmly that they regard the Northern Ireland Constitution Act as dead.

Mr. Gilmour: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but he has not answered the question. Do these people


object to elections being held under the Constitution Act?

Mr. Rees: This is not a pedantic point; it is an important point. Anything that I do I have to do under the legislation enacted by the previous administration. People who have come to see me have told me that they regard the Constitution Act as dead. If they have any new ideas for any other form of election, or for any other purposes, it will require legislation.

Emergency Provisions Act

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding his plans for the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend expects to lay a renewal order before the House shortly.
Meanwhile, the committee under my noble Friend Lord Gardiner has had its first meeting and has issued an invitation to all interested organisations and individuals to submit evidence in writing.

Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful for that reply. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when he introduces the order he will amend it so that it will end internment and imprisonment without trial?

Mr. Orme: That is not directly connected with the order as such, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are committed to the ending of internment when the security situation permits.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Now that Corporal Foxford, my constituent, has been released on bail—about which the whole House will be very glad—will the Minister say whether he has had or will have discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the desirability or otherwise of soldiers being liable for civil trial following incidents occurring on the spur of the moment under what amount to active service conditions?

Mr. Orme: The Gardiner Committee will consider this problem, and evidence may be submitted to it.

Mr. McNamara: Why are we shuffling off responsibility on to the Gardiner Com

mittee when in Standing Committee we fought the whole of this Bill, divided 22 times and resisted many of the powers in it? Why are we behaving in this way?

Mr. Orme: A great deal of the Bill was opposed, but not the Bill in principle. I must ask my hon. Friend to await the renewal order before he pursues the matter further.

Captain Orr: Am I right in thinking that we shall get a renewal order but that there is no question of the amendment of the Act this Session?

Mr. Orme: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will await the renewal order. There cannot be amendment, but there could be deletions.

Prisoners (Discussions with Ministers)

Mr. Dalyell: sked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the discussions held by Ministers with Mr. Morley and Mr. Quigley of the Provisional IRA, Mr. Monaghan and Mr. O'Hare of the IRA, Mr. Craig and Mr. Spence of the Loyalists, in the Maze Prison, Long Kesh, and with Miss Hickey and Miss McKie in the women's prison at Armagh.

Mr. Orme: My noble friend and I have made several visits to familiarise ourselves with the conditions in prisons in Northern Ireland. In the course of these visits we have met a number of detainees and convicted prisoners, including some of those referred to in the Question.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend has seen the acres of wire at Long Kesh. Can he imagine, if Long Kesh had been in Kenya at the time of the Mau Mau, or in Aden, the eloquence of those speeches from Tribune platforms denouncing the whole set-up? In the circumstances, will he at least look at the possibility, unpopular though it may be, of allowing the people named and other spokesmen at least to talk with each other out of the hearing of English and Scottish representatives?

Mr. Orme: On the last point, my hon. Friend is aware—because he has been to Long Kesh—that prisoners from different sections of the community do talk to one another, but this is seen as


a security problem for the governor and he must have a representative present for that reason. I understand my hon. Friend's feeling about detention, but he is also talking about 1,000 convicted prisoners in the Maze, as well as other people.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider building a new prison? He has referred to prisoners in the Maze, which is in my constituency. Will he consider this as a matter of great urgency and make a decision within the next month?

Mr. Orme: I do not know about the next month, but my right hon. Friend is at the moment urgently considering this situation.

Mr. Stallard: Will the Minister accept that I welcome any discussions of this character that take place in the Six Counties? Who is responsible for drawing up the list of people who are spoken to, and who decides who is to be excluded?

Mr. Orme: When I visited the Maze it was the detainees and prisoners who decided who should come out and speak to the Minister concerned.

Women Prisoners

Mr. Norman Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what maximum security conditions are available for women prisoners in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Orme: The prison at Armagh is at present the only institution in Northern Ireland for women prisoners. Security at the prison is kept under continuous review.

Mr. Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to which prison the Price sisters will be transferred? Does he agree that at present there is no women's prison in Northern Ireland, including Armagh, which provides adequate security for these prisoners, and that the only way that this can be provided is by placing fresh demands on the security forces?

Mr. Orme: I cannot answer the first part of the Question at the moment. There is a women's prison in Northern Ireland, and I cannot go further than the state

ment by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. McNamara: How many women have escaped from Armagh since the prison was built?

Mr. Orme: To my knowledge, none.

Mr. McCusker: The prison in Armagh is in what is known as a Loyalist area of the town, and for the past five years it has been the focal point of a steady stream of protests and demonstrations which has led to riot situations between inhabitants and security forces—

Mr. Stallard: So has Brixton.

Mr. McCusker: My constituents would not welcome the transfer of the Price sisters, because this would result in an unending stream of protest. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider opening a high security wing at the Maze or Magilligan Camp?

Mr. Orme: The siting of prisons is a difficult matter. The Government are always unpopular when they decide to put a prison in or near any hon. Member's constituency. On the general principle, the security arrangements at Armagh are adequate.

Security Forces

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to strengthening the powers available to the security forces in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Orme: The powers required by the security forces to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland will be examined by Lord Gardiner's committee. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any specific proposals may I suggest that he places them before the committee?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: What does the Minister think about the arrest and immediate interrogation powers which are available to the security forces and which are so necessary in gaining intelligence upon which all else depends?

Mr. Orme: I cannot comment on that. All these powers will be examined by the independent committee under Lord Gardiner, and I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member submits his evidence there.

Political Parties

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to enable him to prescribe rules for the formation and operations of political parties in Northern Ireland, and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir.

Mr. Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that there have been attempts by extreme right-wing elements to take advantage of the situation, and does not he accept that in order to arrest this lurch to the right it will be necessary for the British trade union and Labour movement to engage in conversations with organisations like the Ulster Workers' Council and other organisations representing the working people of Northern Ireland? Will he seek to assist in such negotiation?

Mr. Rees: The one point that I have learned about Northern Ireland is that there is extreme everything in politics there. It is my job to make sure that everybody who wants to act politically, and not by the bomb or gun, should have the right to do so, and that is the hope. As for some of the organisations my hon. Friend mentions, there is a trade union movement in Northern Ireland which has a view on this matter. It is associated with the trade union movement here. I think that it knows its business on this, and on negotiations on political matters—as with so many other things—it is best left to decide for itself what is the best course.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the right hon. Gentleman were to prescribe rules on these lines, could those rules prevent the official IRA from holding an international guerrilla festival in Belfast, or has he powers adequate to deal with that situation already?

Mr. Rees: I am aware of an international conference. I had not come across it under the precise title given by the hon. Member. I certainly have powers to deal with any matter under the Emergency Provisions Act and in other ways where, for example, a meeting might lead to death, fighting, gunfire or things like that. I shall be looking at this conference very closely.

Constituencies

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now take steps to increase the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Orme: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a Question from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 4th April.—[Vol. 871, c. 1421.]

Mr. Marten: In spite of that answer, will the Minister look at some of the highly inflated electorates in some of the Northern Irish constituencies, because they are simply not fair? If the argument is that because the people sometimes have a local Assembly, which operates or does not operate, they need fewer MPs, will the same doctrine apply if Scotland gets a local Assembly? Shall we cut down the number of Scottish MPs'? Would it not be a gesture for general peace in Northern Ireland if an offer were made to increase the number of seats?

Mr. Orme: I am sorry that I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that hon. Members will recognise that Northern Ireland is in a unique position. The Government feel that to increase representation now would be detrimental to the general political situation. The Government want Northern Ireland people of both communities to start resolving the problems in Northern Ireland themselves. We do not necessarily believe that they can be resolved on the Floor of this House.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister accept that at the beginning of a period of considerable constitutional discussion, it is undesirable that that option should appear to be closed and out of the Government's mind? Could not the real reason for their unwillingness to give the representation to which Northern Ireland is entitled, in view of the extent of its affairs controlled from Westminster, be the fear that the results of elections not conducted on proportional representation would be unfair?

Mr. Orme: We had proportional representation for the Assembly elections. If the Executive had remained, and if power sharing, which was becoming a great success in Northern Ireland, had remained, we should have had an Assembly and a form of government in


Northern Ireland, plus representation in this House, without equal in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are English Members who represent electorates in excess of any in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Orme: I am aware of that.

Border

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received any representations concerning the possibility of repartitioning Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David James: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will consider negotiating with the Republic of Ireland a border that is shorter, more in line with demographic considerations and easier for all concerned to patrol.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There are problems about the border, but it would be a mistake to suppose that Northern Ireland's troubles could be resolved or even made significantly easier by redrawing the boundary. I have received no representations for this from any political party in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dixon: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if there were repartition it would by implication also involve a transfer of population, and that although that would undoubtedly cause considerable economic and social stress, the danger to life and the economic prosperity of the Province would be considerably smaller than the sort of dangers that would arise if nothing were done about the present situation?

Mr. Rees: This is the sort of exercise that looks good in the weekend papers but bears little relationship to reality. It might be different if it were just the question of the mixed population on the border, but the Catholic population of Belfast are proud of being citizens of Belfast. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has told me, on many issues concerning Belfast, that Belfast matters to him and to his people. To suggest that because it is a difficult question that has exercised our minds without any solution for a long period—

as I am often reminded—one should tell 500,000 people that they should live somewhere where they do not want to live, is the wrong way to approach the matter.

Mr. Fitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman take if from me that both communities in Northern Ireland will bitterly resent the form in which the Question has been put which implies that people in Northern Ireland would agree to a further repartition of the country? Both communities in Northern Ireland resent any Englishman telling them where they shall and shall not live in the island of Ireland.

Assembly

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange as a matter of urgency for fresh elections to the Assembly.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir.

Mr. King: All hon. Members find from time to time that people do not vote in the way they would like them to vote. This is annoying, but so far it has never been held to be a reason for not holding an election in either Ireland or England. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect a political solution to emerge if he bottles up and stifles political opinion, which can be expressed only through elections? Does he realise that he will be no more successful in governing by the Army in the future than he has been in the past, and that political expression of opinion is a vital element?

Mr. Rees: The problem of the Army and its rôle is real. The hon. Gentleman should not believe that Northern Ireland is governed by the Army. I hope that he will consider the form in which his Question was put. He is asking me to hold elections under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. It might well be that I gave the short answer, "No, Sir", because that is the answer I have had from many people in Northern Ireland who have come to see me.

Mr. Madden: In view of the diversity opinion which he has said exists in Northern Ireland about the future, will my right hon. Friend consider modern methods of public participation, using the media, so that the people of Northern


Ireland—both the majority and the minority—can clearly express their views about the various options for their country, and so that those views may be assessed?

Mr. Rees: The best way of finding out what the people of Northern Ireland want is by elections. That statement is not a turn-round from the answer to the precise Question I was asked before. I am prepared to find any way of doing this, but one thing is sure: the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) shows that there is only one way for the people of Northern Ireland to get to know each other and their views, and that is by talking to each other and not to an Englishman, or a Welshman, as some people tell me.

Captain Orr: Will the right hon. Gentleman please desist from giving us a sort of semantic reason for not holding the elections, with his curious argument about the Constitution Act? There is no reason why he should not hold the elections for the Assembly without being in a hurry to implement Section 2 of the Act. Once the Assembly has been elected he can use it to determine the views of the majority.

Mr. Rees: That is not the view that is put to me by some people in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's group in Northern Ireland. Friends of his are telling me very firmly that they regard the Northern Ireland Constitution Act as dead. My reply is that if it is dead, all of it is dead—not just the bits of it they do not like.

Supplementary Benefits

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the percentage of the population of Northern Ireland who are maintained by supplementary benefits; and how this compares with the percentage for the United Kingdom generally.

Mr. Orme: In April 1974, the latest date for which United Kingdom figures are available, about 101,000 people in Northern Ireland—6·5 per cent. of the population—were receiving supplementary benefits. It is estimated that those benefits took into account the requirements of about 184,000 persons, including the recipients themselves—11·9 per cent. of the population.
The corresponding figures for the United Kingdom were 2,855,000, or 5·1 per cent. and 4,427,000, or 7·9 per cent.

Mr. Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the present tax and social security system many people, particularly those with large families, cannot afford to get a job? Is he further aware that so long as this state of affairs continues it will be impossible to bring the troubles in Ireland to an end, because so many people have time on their hands and the State is just paying for them to do nothing?

Mr. Orme: I, and many Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies who have fought so long for full employment in industry in Northern Ireland, take that remark as an insult to both communities in the Province. The same conditions exist there as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland Finance Corporation

Mr. James Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation refuses to agree to pay interest on overdue compensation payments.

Mr. Orme: The Northern Ireland Finance Corporation is a statutory body with an independent board of directors responsible for the conduct of its affairs. It is not appropriate for me to comment further.

Mr. Allason: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has an interest in seeing that the Corporation conducts its affairs in a reasonably economic way? Does he defend its actions?

Mr. Orme: Of course the Government have a responsibility, but they cannot interfere in a case where litigation is currently taking place. The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of that.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Royal Ulster Constabulary recruitment.

Mr. Orme: There has been a 28 per cent. increase in total RUC strength since 1st January 1970. At 31st May the strength of the force was 4,448 and of


the RUC Reserve 2,538. A major recruiting campaign is being conducted by the police authority and the chief constable.

Mr. McCusker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Secretary of State that for any appreciable increase to take place in the RUC, recruitment must come from the Roman Catholic population of Northern Ireland? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that such recruitment takes place?

Mr. Orme: We consider this to be a major point. We have had consultations with representatives of the minority community, not least the SDLP. If the Executive had not fallen we should have been a long way on the road to getting more people into the RUC from the minority community. The majority has a responsibility to encourage people from both communities to join the RUC.

CONDUCT IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Milne: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals in regard to the report of the Committee on Conduct in Local Government chaired by Lord Redcliffe-Maud in connection with the recommendations that can be implemented at once.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Some of the committee's recommendations can be implemented by local authorities straight away. Consultations will begin very soon with local government bodies on those proposals which would require legislation.

Mr. Milne: May I thank the Prime Minister for that excellent report? Will he have a special look at the section in the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations that deals with the question of local authority party groups and the fact that their code of conduct should be no less strict than the code of the authority?

The Prime Minister: Where decisions are taken outside the council about the line to be taken in council this recommendation is important, irrespective of party. The hon. Gentleman will know that certain decisions were taken yesterday to try to improve this situation.

Sir W. Elliott: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the constant suggestions of his hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) about corruption in the North-East of England, particularly in the ranks of the Labour Party, are doing a great deal of harm to public life in the region? Does he recognise that Recommendation 5 of the report, which suggests that councillors and officials need to work and should work in harmony, is accepted by most officials and councillors in the North-East of England? Will he consider instigating a Labour Party inquiry into the relationship between his party and local government, as requested by so many hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: What we have done is to set up a Royal Commission dealing with the whole subject. I agree with the opening remarks of the hon. Member's statement about the damage being done by certain irresponsible statements that are being made, but the House will recognise that the speech I made at Shildon last year, which was warmly accepted by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), was followed up immediately by the then Prime Minister, in that he set up the Redcliffe-Maud inquiry into the general issues, knowing that the inquiry could not look into issues which were the subject of court proceedings. As soon as the court proceedings in those cases ended I took action, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would have done, to set up a Royal Commission, which will be able to take account of the evidence produced in those police inquiries and the court proceedings, to look into the wider issues.

CROWD CONTROL EQUIPMENT

Mr. Farr: asked the Prime Minister if he will institute arrangements for cooperation between the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office in relation to the purchase of weapons and crowd control equipment.

The Prime Minister: The services with which these two Departments are concerned have very different functions. But arrangements for co-operation already exist and I am satisfied that they are adequate.

Mr. Farr: In view of the recent incidents in London, particularly the incident in Red Lion Square, a fortnight


ago—which was contained by the police only at great personal bodily risk, and in which 39 police were injured—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether discussions have taken place about the introduction of more sophisticated crowd control equipment, such as, for instance, making water cannon available for use when needed?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. As for the Red Lion Square incident, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that there will be an inquiry into all the events that took place there on 15th June. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman, whether in the Red Lion Square context or any other, does not, I think, relate to his Question about co-ordination in the purchase of equipment.

Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Office appears to be badly in need of advice on weapons purchasing policy from, for instance, a central advisory committee on firearms control? Is he further aware that I have been told by the Home Office that 9 mm. Parabellum ammunition for hand guns has too high a velocity for approval but that, on the other hand, the Home Office appears to have approved the purchase of 7·62 mm. rifles for the civilian police force, which use ammunition with a much higher penetrating power than is required for normal police use?

The Prime Minister: I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend is in touch with the Home Office, I am sure that the specialist and esoteric information he has given to the House this afternoon will be conveyed personally by him to my right hon. Friend.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Mr. Marks: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a Royal Commission on the reform of local government finance.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be making a statement later today on these matters during the debate on rates.

Mr. Marks: I appreciate that a Royal Commission may take too long, but is the Prime Minister aware that an increasing number of people do not accept the Conservative Opposition's dishonest campaign on rates and do not believe the Government or their local councils, but would welcome an independent review or inquiry in the hope that it would abolish the rating system and introduce in its place a tax based on income?

The Prime Minister: In reply to my hon. Friend's reference to the Conservative Party, while there is room for disagreement about the incidence of rates between particular areas on the basis of need, the total national increase in rates which the country has seen and is concerned about is exactly the same as it would have been under the Conservatives, but it is differently distributed. That being so, the Conservatives cannot say that rates have risen too much this year, because that was a decision of the Conservative Government before we came into office.
The anxiety and general cynicism that are felt about the whole rating system are, I am sure, shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. We all know that the position is unsatisfactory, and about 30 years of endeavour have not yet produced a satisfactory alternative. I should like to leave the question in the hands of my right hon. Friend who will be speaking in the debate today.

Sir David Renton: Is the Prime Minister aware that one particular aspect of this problem requires special and immediate inquiry? There are certain areas of the country, like the new county of Cambridgeshire, which, because of town development and new towns, are rapidly expanding and therefore have a higher-than-average educational burden but happen to be areas, generally, of below-average rateable value? There is a particular problem here worth a special inquiry. What will the Prime Minister do about it?

The Prime Minister: That is a problem also for overspill areas outside some of the great conurbations. Indeed, my own local authority probably has to bear the highest education burden because of the past high birth rate. We all know that this is a serious problem. I do not


know, but it may be that when these matters are further considered the widening of local government areas will help to produce the opportunity to spread the burdens more equitably, although we all recognise that the coming into force of the new local authority areas has led to a considerable increase in the salaries paid to local government officers generally, compared with the position before 1st April. That is certainly part of the increased national burden, however it is distributed.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (PRESIDENT)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to have a further meeting with the President of the European Parliament following the discussions of 10th June.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Dykes: Would not Mr. Berkhouwer be as fascinated as the rest of us to know whether the national coalition proposed by the Liberals would enable the right hon. Gentleman to send a delegation to Europe? Secondly, and more important, would the right hon. Gentleman join a national coalition?

The Prime Minister: When the Question was put down, I do not think that the feverish discussions on the part of the two Opposition parties could have been known to Mr. Berkhouwer. He discussed with me the question of the European Assembly. I told him that Labour Party representation was a matter for the Parliamentary Labour Party, and that I did not think that there would be representation in the immediate future but that this was a matter that would be considered after the conclusion of the negotiations and the decision of the British people about Britain's standing in relation to the Common Market.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend share my opinion and that of the overwhelming majority of our party comrades that the European Assembly is no more democratic now than it was when we originally took our decision about participation, and no more democratic than would be a coalition with the Liberals? Does my right hon. Friend

agree that our aim of fundamental renegotiation would not be assisted by involving ourselves in superficial tittle-tattle at Strasbourg?

The Prime Minister: I do not see why so distinguished an international figure as Dr. Berkhouwer should be smeared by association with the squalid coalition talks between the two major Opposition parties. He is a very serious parliamentary figure, with great experience in these matters, and, indeed, with experience of coalitions. My hon. Friend's other remarks concern matters which are for consideration by the House and by individual parties when the outcome of the negotiations is known, and when the decision of the British people is made. I have not yet heard from the Leader of the Opposition whether he supports either the principle of renegotiation or the particular terms we have put forward. Perhaps one day he will tell the country.

Mr. David Steel: As the Prime Minister is now treating the European Assembly seriously, will he say whether the Government support the Assembly's attempts to get increased powers on budgetary matters? Leaving aside the question of Labour Party representation, will the right hon. Gentleman facilitate additions to the delegation in August when those who are no longer Members of the House have to retire from the delegation?

The Prime Minister: The retirement of certain hon. Members of the past Parliament and their replacement must be a matter for the parties which send them. It is not a matter for the Government. We would not stand in the way of any views expressed by the Conservative Party or by the Liberal Party. I am not sure whether the Liberal Party is affected.
The question of the powers of the Assembly is consequential on the much more fundamental negotiations which are going on about Britain in relation to the Common Market. As the hon. Gentleman has identified himself with a coalition, in that event he can only raise the average level of quality of the Opposition Front Bench. Before a coalition is ratified, no doubt with the weighty support of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), I hope that the Liberal Party will get answers from the


Leader of the Opposition on his attitude both to a referendum and to the questions I put to him this afternoon.

GOVERNMENT POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Durham Labour Women's gala on economic policy on 1st June represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. McCrindle: In that speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer underlined the overriding need to stimulate investment in industry and to control inflation. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would materially assist the former if the Labour Party were to bring forward as quickly as possible its plans for public ownership in industry? Will the Prime Minister say whether, if the social contract does not mitigate inflation in the way it is hoped, his Government will feel free to return to the statutory control of wages?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's wide-ranging supplementary question, I thought that the point which concerns him was answered by my right thon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House in my absence on Tuesday, when he said that we shall shortly present a White Paper setting out the situation quite definitively. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, I am surprised that there has not been, either from the hon. Gentleman—who has great authority in these matters—or, indeed, from the Leader of the Opposition, a welcome for the statement made by the General Council of the TUC yesterday, which is a great advance.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks yesterday about the Industrial Relations Act—and we welcome this great conversion, with its aim of building on his relations with the TUC—I hope that he will explain why his talks with the TUC did not lead to a voluntary policy. The TUC has made clear that it is now dealing with a Government who can introduce a great measure of social justice in the economy, which is a necessary

requirement for the voluntary agreement which the right hon. Gentleman sought and failed to get.

Mr. Cant: I welcome the statement by the Trades Union Congress. Does the Prime Minister accept that the economic prospects are such that the time has come to call a world economic conference? Does he further agree that the rate of increase in money supply in this country is falling so rapidly, and the national self-interest of Germany and the United States is such, that we shall not be able to reflate the economy—and that unless there is a change of heart here and in the world as a whole, there is likely to be serious unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that, apart from the obligations of national Governments and national communities, there is a vast international problem connected with oil prices, oil moneys and volatile movements of capital. The recent meeting of the Finance Ministers dealt with these matters over a wide area of the world. I should like to deal with some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend, but at the weekend I hope to make a fairly full speech on the international questions raised by him and also on national issues. I undertake to place a copy of that speech in the Library.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that the form of today's Order Paper is slightly different, and I also appreciate that my name in Question 20 is not spelt as it should be, but could you tell me why my Question was not called with No. 3?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is that I was not informed that it was to be grouped.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House please state next week's business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 1ST JULY—Second Reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill.
Debate on an Opposition motion on pension policy.
Remaining stages of the Pakistan Bill.
Motions on the Synodical Government and the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measures.
TUESDAY 2ND JULY—Supply [11TH Allotted Day]: Debate on defence on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Juries Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
WEDNESDAY 3RD JULY—Supply [12TH Allotted Day]: Debate on an Opposition motion on education, until 7 p.m.
Thereafter, firstly a debate on draft Community Guidelines for Economic Policy etc., and then on Regulations on Regional Policy.
THURSDAY 4TH JULY—Second Reading of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (No. 2) Bill and of the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 5TH JULY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 8TH JULY—Consideration of Private Members' motions until 7 p.m. Afterwards, Second Reading of the Rent Bill [Lords].

Mr. Heath: It has been widely reported in the Press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make an important statement announcing further economic measures. Will the right hon. Gentleman say when that statement will be made and what arrangements are being made to debate it?
Secondly, when will statements be made about the Government's decision on the future of Concorde and on the choice of nuclear reactor?
Thirdly, I should like to mention another important matter, which is a constitutional point. I understand that the Government intend to alter the rules governing the political activities of civil ser

vants by allowing special advisers of Ministers paid from public funds, to stand as candidates for Parliament or local authorities. This raises considerable constitutional issues.
The Leader of the House is aware that this is a matter on which the Opposition do not hold the same view as the Government. Will he give a firm undertaking that no action will be taken to alter these rules until the House has an opportunity to debate the matter? I believe that this is essential, since this point is of such constitutional importance.
In view of the large number of matters which I have mentioned and which remain to be debated, can he tell the House that certain suggestions that we shall rise early in July are certainly not true and that the House will find it necessary to sit until the end of July?

Mr. Short: The first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerned a statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If my right hon. Friend has a statement to make, he will certainly make it before the recess. On Concorde, the Government will be announcing their decision some time in the next few weeks.
On the third question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman regarding special advisers, the Government intend tomorrow to table an amendment to the Servants of the Crown Order to the Privy Council. This is an amendment to the 1960 Order, which is a prerogative order, and no parliamentary action is required. Out of courtesy to the Opposition, I told the right hon. Gentleman about this amendment. I wrote to him some weeks ago, and I wrote to him again today to tell him that we intended to take this action. I thought that I should put the Opposition in the picture on this matter—[Interruption.] I repeat that this is a prerogative order which requires no parliamentary action whatever. I have told the Opposition about it. In any event the order with the amendment will be published in the Gazette. There is no secrecy about this at all—[interruption.] If the Opposition want to hear my answer, perhaps they will listen to what I am saying. We take


the view that as these advisers are political, it is ridiculous to try to prevent their having normal political rights.
On the last point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I have read the reports in the Press about the recess and I am afraid that there is some substance in them.

Mr. Heath: The Leader of the House is right to tell the House that it will be necessary to sit until the end of the month. However, is he aware that he has perpetuated the uncertainty on three major issues. I refer to Concorde, the nuclear reactor and further economic measures. It is not good enough to say that if the Chancellor needs to make a statement, then he will make one. Surely the Leader of the House must by now know the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
To return to the question of the position of political advisers to the Government, the order is not debatable. Moreover, when the order has been laid before the Privy Council, the decision is then taken. This is an important constitutional issue. We are grateful to the Leader of the House for telling us of the Government's intentions, but we express our opposition to the situation. It is only fair that an important constitutional change of this kind—a change which will distinguish between the political activities of different civil servants and will mean that some civil servants cannot indulge in political activities while others can—should be debated in the House before the order is laid. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Lord President of the Council, not to present this order to the Privy Council tomorrow.

Mr. Short: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I shall present the order to the Privy Council tomorrow [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] The right hon. Gentleman asserts that this will be the only group of civil servants to whom this civic right is extended. That is wrong. There are other categories of civil servants who have this right. This
In regard to Concorde and the subject of nuclear reactors, the uncertainty is due simply adds to the list of exceptions and does nothing more than that.

to the inactivity on those topics by the Conservative Government. The Labour Government will reach a decision in the next few weeks and come forward with their proposals.

Mr. Heath: I repudiate what the Lord President said about Concorde. That matter and also the subject of nuclear reactors has been reopened by the present Government.
On the question of the Civil Service, if the immunity is to be extended to those right at the top of the Civil Service who hold the highest positions there, then it is essential that these matters should be debated by the House of Commons. The Lord President is behaving in a rather uncharacteristic way by trying to steamroller the House on this important matter. It would make no difference to him to hold up the order so that Parliament could debate it before he presented it to the Privy Council.

Mr. Short: I told the Opposition about this order some weeks ago. I wrote to the Opposition Chief Whip this morning to confirm that we were presenting the order tomorrow. If these people are brought into Government as political advisers, I believe, in common with most other citizens, that they should possess the right to stand as parliamentary candidates. They would have to resign their positions in the Civil Service on nomination day if they were nominated. We believe that they should be able to stand as candidates.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my right hon. Friend recall my request to the Prime Minister and his reply on Monday concerning a debate on the British nuclear explosion and the point of order that I subsequently addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, about a debate? Is he aware that Early Day Motion 194, which appeared on the Order Paper only today because of printing difficulties, amongst other things asked for a debate. Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that the motion is now supported by well over 100 of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as by a number of Opposition hon. Members? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we are asking for a debate on this matter not as part of a general defence debate but a debate specifically on the nuclear issue? Will


my right hon. Friend say when that debate will take place?

[That this House, taking account of views expressed by hon. Members opposing the series of French nuclear tests, and of the dismay expressed at nuclear explosions by other countries, greatly regrets the explosion of a nuclear device by Great Britain since the Labour Government came into office; and calls for a clear statement of the purposes of this test and whether it represents a further increase of Great Britain's nuclear armoury, in both military capacity and financial costs; asks for total adherence to the Prime Minister's promise that there will be no further such test until the completion of the Defence Review, debate by the House and the opportunity for Members to vote on the issue; and urges the Labour Government to discourage proliferation of nuclear weapons by itself setting an example to the rest of the world.]

Mr. Short: I cannot offer any time beyond the halfday on one day next week.

Mr. Grimond: May I declare an interest? I am a director of the trust which originally financed the political assistants to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I ask him to think again about this matter because there are wide issues about the need for political assistants and their status which the House should consider, quite apart from whether they should stand for Parliament. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to find time for general consideration of this matter.
Further, are we to debate the Scottish economy before we rise? As I trust that a General Election is imminent, may we now debate Kilbrandon?

Mr. Short: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, all I can offer at this stage is that there will be a debate when the Government have some proposals to put before the House. The Opposition Chief Whip put forward an alternative method of financing political advisers. As I told him in my letter this morning, I think that that is a scheme that has certain attractions, and I am happy to consider it and to discuss it with him.
I cannot give any time for a debate on the Scottish economy, but it is fairly

certain that we shall have an economic debate before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that despite the late stage at which the Rent Bill is being introduced, he is planning for it to complete its passage in the House before the end of the month? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst thing for furnished tenants would be to promise them security and not to legislate in time before they are all evicted?

Mr. Short: We hope to do this, but we can get the Bill on the statute book before the recess only with the good will and assistance of both sides of the House.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on Northern Ireland so that the House can debate and probe the attitude of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on early elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly? With regard to the Northern Ireland Young Persons Bill [Lords], which is to be debated next week, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that copies of this measure are not available in the Vote Office? Will he make some arrangements for hon. Members to have copies for the weekend so that they can study it and prepare themselves for the debate?

Mr. Short: There will be a number of opportunities to debate Northern Ireland matters before the Recess. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity. I am happy to say that the printing workers are now back to normal working and I hope that the supply of printed matter to the House will right itself quickly.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in some difficulty today. Over 50 right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in today's debate. I cannot allow Business Questions to continue for very long.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend say what will be the motion before the House for the debate on Wednesday on the EEC's decision on economic policy?

Mr. Short: On this matter we are feeling our way. It will be the first time that we shall have debated a motion from the Scrutiny Committee. On this


occasion we are tabling a take-note motion. If my right hon. Friend has other suggestions I shall be pleased to discuss them with him.

Mr. Gow: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the urgency of the action he proposes to take tomorrow about political advisers? Does he not think that, in his capacity as Leader of the House, he should take into account the widespread anxiety on this subject and provide for a debate before he takes the action which he proposes to take?

Mr. Short: First, I do not equate noise with widespread anxiety. I do not believe that there is widespread anxiety. We have consulted the staff side about this matter. What we are proposing to do tomorrow is to add a tiny category of rather more than 30 people to the list of exempted civil servants.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of that reply—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that during Business Questions. That may apply in other circumstances to prevent further questions, but not questions on the Business Statement.

Mr. Moonman: I recognise that my right hon. Friend is not impressed by noise, but I hope that he will be impressed by a genuine feeling that there may well be some validity in not dealing with the order tomorrow. It would seem that this is not a party issue. The genuine feeling to which I have referred reflects the great concern that is felt by some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Short: As I say, we have discussed this matter with the staff side. We have informed the Opposition. This is a modest extension of civic rights to a small number of people, and I believe that the order should go ahead.

Mr. Heath: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. When he says that he is not prepared to listen to noise, all well and good, but he sent the Opposition information because he wanted the Opposition's view and, if possible, their agreement. We found it impossible to give agreement and we expressed our complete opposition to it.

The right hon. Gentleman is therefore overriding the views of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues and the Opposition as a whole. He is now overriding the views that are expressed by some of his hon. Friends. I must again ask him to postpone the order tomorrow and to let the House debate the order first. It is not only that it affects a small group but it affects a group who are at a high level in the Civil Service and in the closest contact with Ministers. This breaks the whole tradition of the Civil Service.

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is completely ignoring what I said in the second part of my letter. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been told about this by his Chief Whip. His hon. Friend came to see me and he put forward an alternative method of dealing with the matter. As I have said, I believe that his alternative had certain attractions and that we would consider it and discuss it with him.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends do not like place men of either party being put into these positions and that many of his hon. Friends would like to discuss the matter before the Opposition get the chance to raise it in the House? When my right hon. Friend gives the Opposition private information will he try to give similar information to some of his back benchers?

Mr. Short: These are not place men. They are gifted young people who have come to do a job for a Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These are political advisers. The Conservative Party has 11 of them.

Mr. Burden: May I turn to another subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Leader of the House will be aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has given an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to debate the O'Brien Report. May we now be told when that debate will take place?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has asked me often about this. I am afraid that I still cannot give a date. However, I repeat my assurance that there will not be a change of policy until we have debated that report.

Mr. Edelman: Reverting to the exchanges about political advisers, is it not the case that many of them are holders of offices of profit under the Crown? Is it not, therefore, undesirable that the area of patronage should be extended? In that connection, is it not also undesirable that the privileged status of political advisers should spill over into general democratic politics in which they have a special standing which is not provided for by the constitution?

Mr. Short: I take a different view. I believe that all citizens should have full civic rights.

Sir John Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the feeling of back-bench Members on both sides of the House is very much against him in this matter? As Leader of the House, with a duty to the House, ought he not to take that into account and to withdraw the order until there has been time to debate it?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Short: No, Sir.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are a number of Government supporters who think that the proposal on political advisers which the Government are putting forward is quite right, but that it is such an important matter that it should be debated before it is decided? Along with others of my hon. Friends, may I ask him to reconsider and to provide time for a discussion of this proposal?

Mr. Short: I have not turned down the possibility of a debate, in the same way as we are giving a debate next week to the Opposition on another motion which does not require parliamentary action. Certainly I am prepared to consider a debate later.

Mr. Heath: That makes the situation even more ridiculous. The Leader of the House is prepared to allow the House to debate it after he has taken the action giving these rights. Why cannot he give us a debate before he attempts to give these rights? All that that requires is a postponement of the laying of the order. Will he say now why the order has to be laid tomorrow? What is the urgency?

Mr. Short: The reason is that we believe that these people are political people. They came in as political advisers, in the same way as the 11 people whom the Leader of the Opposition brought into his Government. We believe that they ought to retain their rights.

Mr. Milne: Will the Leader of the House undertake to arrange an early debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries dealing with purchasing procedures in the National Coal Board, if not next week certainly before the recess?

Mr. Short: I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. Mr. Foot—

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that I have not before me the Standing Orders of the House, but I understand that it is not possible to move a motion calling for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 on a Thursday. If that is correct, we face a very unusual situation. The Leader of the House has made a statement which I suggest affects the very constitution of this place and of the country. An order will be produced tomorrow without Parliament having a chance to debate it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. At the appropriate moment, he is quite free to move a motion under Standing Order No. 9 on a Thursday. That moment will be after the statement. Mr. Foot.

FLIXBOROUGH INQUIRY

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about the Flixborough inquiry.
I said in my statement on 3rd June that I would set up a public inquiry which would deal with all the issues raised by the Flixborough disaster. I have come to the conclusion that this could best be done in the following way.
First, we shall set up an inquiry under the Factories Act to establish the causes


and circumstances of the disaster; and shall ask for advice about any immediate lessons which we can learn from what happened. I have asked Mr. Parker, QC, to serve as Chairman, and Dr. Pope, Vice-Chancellor of Aston University, to be Deputy Chairman. The following people have agreed to serve as members:
Dr. Davidson, Reader in Chemical Engineering, Cambridge University.
Mr. Bill Simpson, Head of the Foundries Section of the AUEW.
I shall ask this court of inquiry to report as quickly as it can, consistent with a full examination of what occurred at Flixborough.
The work on site in connection with the investigation which was instituted by the Factory Inspectorate immediately following the explosion is now virtually completed, though metallurgical and chemical investigations are continuing and will take some time to complete. The information and evidence so far gathered will now be given to the members of the inquiry. The investigation team—and all the resources of the inspectorate—will be available to make such further inquiries as the members of the inquiry think desirable.
Secondly, this disaster has naturally raised public concern about the risk of similar disasters at other plants of this kind. The whole matter will have to be taken up as soon as possible by the Health and Safety Commission to be set up shortly under the legislation now before Parliament. This was specifically recommended by the Robens Committee.
However, in order that an immediate start can be made on the examination of these problems, I have, after consultation with those of my colleagues who have a responsibility in these matters, decided to set up an expert committee to begin work on the nature of the hazards presented by these large-scale plants and on the ways in which people who work in them, or live near them, can be safeguarded and reassured. I shall ask the committee to report in due course to the Health and Safety Commission so that Ministers can be advised on what further steps need to be taken, including the licensing of plants which present particular hazards.
The expert committee will later this year have the full resources of the Health

and Safety Executive to be established under the new legislation to help it with its work. But we do not intend to wait upon the new legislation. I am establishing immediately within my Department an organisation specifically concerned with these major hazards; and the Home Secretary has agreed with me that we should at a very early date bring together within this organisation the Explosives Inspectorate and people from my own Factory Inspectorate. This will ensure a unified organisation to deal with these problems.

Mr. Prior: May I put two questions to the Secretary of State? First, as soon as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill receives the Royal Assent, will he be able to announce the members of the Health and Safety Commission, and can we get on with that quickly?
My second question relates to the expert committee. Will it be able to pay visits to similar plants where hazards are expected? If it will—and I think it should—will it be able to consult local residents to discuss with them their fears about these plants? I think that this would go a long way to allay the fears which may be felt by a lot of local people near these plants.

Mr. Foot: Under the legislation which is going through the House we shall proceed as swiftly as possible to the establishment of the Health and Safety Commission in order to get it into operation. I understand that it will come into operation in October, and immediately after the Bill is through we will proceed to select those who are to serve on the commission.
The expert committee, of course, will be in operation before that. I hope that it will be set up within a fortnight and in operation in four to six weeks. It will be able to visit neighbouring areas as well as going to the places themselves which may come within this list.

Mr. Crouch: What thought has the right hon. Gentleman given to the question of where responsibility lies for determining what is a hazard of this nature? Does it lie with the expert committee? Is it for the local authority to find out? Is it for the company to decide what that hazard is? Sometimes a chemical hazard can be relatively limited on a small scale,


but magnified it can become a real hazard to the population.

Mr. Foot: What the hon. Gentleman says is true. The expert committee and later the commission will have full responsibility for these matters. It would not be a question solely of relying on what the companies might say about it.

Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a factory in my constituency, known as Allied Colloids (Manufacturing) Co. Ltd., which makes chemicals? Its existence, because of the Flixborough disaster, causes a great deal of concern and apprehension to my constituents living around that factory. Will evidence be taken about that factory before the inquiry which is to be held?

Mr. Foot: I am sure the inquiry—not the Flixborough inquiry but the other inquiry—will be able to take evidence of that kind. I am sure that long before that time my hon. Friend will have sent details of information he may have on the subject to my Department and we will look into the matter immediately.

Mr. Torney: Details have already been sent.

Mr. Foot: If the information is already there I am sure we are already inquiring into it.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming to North Lincolnshire. When he speaks to the expert committee, will he consider very seriously the problem of Immingham, in the next constituency, where the people are very worried about this sort of disaster? Will he put on record our thanks to the WRVS for the work it did immediately after the disaster? Is this not an example where it would be a good thing for this country to have the Civil Defence back in operation?

Mr. Foot: When I referred to the original disaster I made reference to the voluntary services which acted so promptly and magnificently in the Flixborough crisis. This refers not only to the voluntary services but to the mining inspectorate, the fire service, the police, the Salvation Army and others. I hope I have not omitted anyone from the list. One of the most impressive things I

saw there was how the immediate crisis was dealt with.
People in many areas throughout the country are worried because of what happened when the accident took place. It is because of those worries that we have set up this expert committee, along the lines I am suggesting, as well as the inquiry into the Flixborough disaster.

Mr. John Ellis: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and consideration he has shown throughout this inquiry to my constituents who have been bereaved and whose property has been damaged.
I also thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of my constituents for his very comprehensive statement, which shows that he has listened to the representations made to him by my constituents and me. Does he regard the inquiry set up by the Transport and General Workers' Union and other unions as being helpful? Will they and other bodies in my area along with other individuals who may have been affected, be heard before this inquiry? Will nothing that the inquiry is doing prevent the claims of the affected people in my area being paid out?
Will my right hon. Friend look immediately at the position of the Factory Inspectorate? I know, from cases in constituencies surrounding my own, that it is under very heavy pressure. My right hon. Friend may need to ensure that the whole force is strengthened to carry out the task which other hon. Gentlemen and I are laying upon them at this time. They must be dreadfully overloaded.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for the questions but for the truly magnificent services he gave to his constituents during the whole of this crisis and the way, in particular, in which he assisted in ensuring that there could be established very speedily proper relations between the shop stewards, the trade unions on the spot and the Factory Inspectorate. We in my Department are deeply grateful to him for all the assistance he gave to us and to his constituents during the crisis.
I have nothing to add to what I said previously about the responsibility for the claims. On a previous occasion I gave


the House a statement which was made by the company on that matter. I said we would have consultations about it to ensure that the claims were fully discharged. I am certain that will be carried out.
I believe that the Factory Inspectorate is the most important aspect of the matter. Anybody who saw what the inspectorate did on the spot will realise the strain imposed on it by disasters of this character. Therefore, there is one immediate incontrovertible lesson to be learned from the Flixborough disaster. We must strengthen the Factory Inspectorate. We must recruit more inspectors and pay them more money to get them.

Mr. Kimball: Referring to the expert committee on environmental pollution which the right hon. Gentleman has announced, will he ensure that the evidence taken on the west bank of the river, in Amcotts village, as well as on the Flixborough site, is considered?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also draw the inquiry's attention to the very humane and expeditious way in which the Nypro firm has been dealing with the damage? My constituents are highly satisfied with the very fair treatment they are receiving from this firm and the very prompt payment they have been given.
Without underestimating the human disaster and tragedy, could the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made with finding alternative employment for 500 people in North Lincolnshire who have lost good, well-paid jobs in this explosion?

Mr. Foot: I shall not try to answer the hon. Gentleman's last question yet because I have not the answer to it. There are other matters we have to attend to even more urgently. The inquiry will take into account the dangers for people in surrounding areas, as will the other expert inquiry, although that subject will come even more within its province.
The worst aspect of this terrible tragedy is the people who were killed in the plant. That is the peril we must avoid most importantly of all. That does not exclude all the other aspects of the inquiry.

Mr. Cryer: I welcome the Minister's statement. If he is not satisfied with the standards pertaining at Flixborough will he assure the House that he will be pre

pared to bring to the House immediately further legislation to strengthen the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill? Some of us feel that that Bill will not prevent another Flixborough.

Mr. Foot: I know of the constructive criticism my hon. Friend has made during discussions of the Health and Safety Committee. We will take into account what he and others have said in drawing up the regulations within the next few months. Our debates have greatly fortified the Department in proceeding along the way in which we are to tackle the problem. I am grateful to the hon. Member even if we have had to reject some of his amendments. I believe that the commission will be able to carry out the task properly. It will be able to do its work. Otherwise I would not have supported it as it stands. We must learn as swiftly as possible from Flixborough and take that into account. I assure my hon. Friend that we will do that.
If, when we bring forward our regulations, my hon. Friend or other hon. Members think we have not learnt fully from this appalling disaster, as we should have done, we must debate the matter in the House and we must ensure that we do what should be done.
The most important aspect of the whole business is that we should recruit more factory inspectors who are able to do the job. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me.

Dr. Winstanley: With regard to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and his very welcome proposals to set up an organisation to monitor these hazards on a continuing basis, does he recognise that there is a great deal of anxiety, which may or may not be justified, in many parts of the country about dangers of this kind? It is, therefore, essential to establish open lines of communication through which ordinary people can channel their fears and anxieties to a body that can act. Will he ensure that when this body is set up it will be readily accessible to all members of the public who have fears in this regard?

Mr. Foot: That is one of the aspects which I am sure the Health and Safety Commission will operate when it comes into being, and it is an aspect which was debated when the Bill went through the


House. Prior to that, of course, the Department of Employment is very ready to receive any information which anyone may wish to offer from particular areas. Immediately we had the first reports from Flixborough, the Chief Inspector tooks steps to discuss the need for a review of safety precautions with the Chemical Industries Association. Letters were sent and discussions took place with representatives of large-scale chemical plants all over the country. So even prior to the inquiry we have tried to learn something from what happened.

Mr. Tinn: Bearing in mind that incidents may well happen despite all the precautions, will my right hon. Friend, in collaboration with his colleagues in the Home Office, look into the procedures and experience that have grown up on Teesside, which has the largest petrochemical complex in the world? Those procedures include co-operation among public services like the police and the fire service, private industry and public industry, in order to take action after incidents to minimise damage, to coordinate efforts to deal with it. No doubt even on Teesside we still have a great deal to learn. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the question of dealing with the situation after it has arisen is also considered, as well as that of avoiding it?

Mr. Foot: Yes, we are drawing up what we consider to be a judgment on what happened and what we can learn about immediate action to be taken after these disasters. But it is also the case that everyone who has seen what happened at Flixborough for himself will agree that the Factory Inspectorate, along with the many other services, acted with the utmost promptitude and skill.

POLITICAL ADVISERS

Mr. Heath: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) suggested a moment or two ago that one way of dealing with the matter which we discussed during business questions, of political advice to the Government, would be for the House to ask to be allowed to debate the matter on the Adjournment, moved under Standing Order No. 9. I should like to adopt that suggestion.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the announcement by the Leader of the House of his intention to lay an order tomorrow which is not debatable in the House, to alter the rules on the political activities of civil servants by allowing special advisers to Ministers, who are paid from public funds, to stand for Parliament and local authorities.
It emerged clearly from the questioning today that this is a specific matter. It is an important constitutional matter. It is also a matter which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have expressed a desire to debate before a decision is reached. It is, therefore, urgent.
In this connection, perhaps I can make what I hope will be a helpful suggestion. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the decision rests in your hands. Should you decide to allow the House to debate the matter, I understand that there are two alternatives under the Standing Order, which I have just consulted: either the debate would be granted this evening—it cannot be granted on a Friday—or it would be granted for the first part of Monday.
Since today's business is undoubtedly of extreme importance—you have already indicated the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part—may I put forward the suggestion that, if you did decide to grant leave, the Leader of the House should agree to postpone the order from tomorrow, that we should be allowed to debate it on Monday afternoon, and that he should then, if the House agrees, lay the order next week.
The right hon. Gentleman has given no indication why it is essential that the order be laid tomorrow. I hope that he will, therefore, find it possible to cooperate, in that, if you do grant this request, he will be prepared to postpone laying the order for 72 hours so as to enable the House to debate it on Monday afternoon rather than interfere with today's important debate.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Rather than put you in that position, Mr. Speaker, and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I will defer laying the order until the meeting of the Privy


Council at the end of July. That will give us time to find adequate opportunity, if it is thought desirable, through the usual channels to debate it.

Mr. Speaker: In the light of that intervention, does the Leader of the Opposition still wish to pursue his application?

Mr. Heath: In the light of what the Leader of the House has said, for which I express my appreciation—on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, since there was a general desire to debate the matter—I will withdraw my request for leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to permit the matter to be debated.

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order When the Leader of the Opposition rose to seek leave to move the Adjournment, I naturally thought that he was seeking to question the Secretary of State for Employment on his important statement. I felt that I was entitled to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman since my constituency has one of the most threatened environments in the country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentle-made a speech about this matter yesterday. I have to have some regard for that sort of factor. It is a matter for my discretion whom I call to put supplementary questions. I will tell the hon. Gentleman that he has not been backward in putting forward the interests of his constituents, but I cannot call him every time.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (VISITORS)

Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. I know that time is pressing, but I am also aware that many other hon. Members are concerned about the matter that I wish to raise. Today seems the only appropriate time at which this can be done.
On Monday of last week, 17th June, I raised a point of order with you, in which I said:
… the Serjeant at Arms in some respects is responsible to you",

and further asked you whether you would see to it
… that hon. Members are both consulted and informed about arrangements and are not confronted with arbitrary decisions over which they seem to have no control and about which they have no information, to the embarrassment of themselves and their constituents.
You, Mr. Speaker, kindly replied:
If action is taken … it must be by my authority, but I prefer that the House itself should exercise that authority. These are basically matters for the House and it is for the House to resolve what should or should not be done. But if, in an emergency, I have to take immediate decisions, I do so upon the advice of the Services Committee, if possible.
I then asked:
But you will inform us, Mr. Speaker?
You replied:
I or the Leader of the House will certainly inform the House of what measures have been taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June 1974; Vol. 875, c. 44.]
In the light of difficulties that I have experienced three times in the last week about interference with arrangements which I have made to receive visitors, on my behalf a request was made to the police to quote the authority on which they were acting. It was certainly not intended to challenge the conduct of the police. In support of the rule that the police were enforcing there was produced a letter addressed to the Chief Inspector of Police, Houses of Parliament, and the Superintendent of Custodians, Houses of Parliament, signed by the Serjeant at Arms, which said:
During the time that the Staff Canteen, Westminster Hall, is out of action, no guests may be entertained in the Strangers' Cafeteria before 8 p.m.
Inquiry to your office, Mr. Speaker, revealed that you apparently had no knowledge of this, further inquiries showed that the Services Committee had no knowledge of it and inquiries to the office of the Leader of the House revealed that there was no information about the matter there either.
I understand that what was conveyed in the letter was a mistaken interpretation of an intention and also that a new decision is to be announced in the near future. But the point that I am making is not a storm in a teacup. It concerns an important matter of principle—that of who runs this place and for whom it is run, and whether my impression that the basic intention is that it should be run for the


benefit of Members and their constituents is correct, or whether there are other interests to be taken into account.
I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on two points. First, can you please repeat and see that there is enforced the ruling that you gave to me last Monday week? May I also ask that any announcement which is made shall state on whose authority the instruction is given? Second, would you take steps to see that hon. Members are informed of these decisions and are not put in the embarrassing position of having no knowledge of them, and of not even knowing who is responsible for the instruction which is given?

Mr. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to apologise to the House for any inconvenience which any hon. Member may have suffered from a misunderstanding that has arisen because of imprecise communication with the authorities within the House, namely the Catering Department and the Serjeant at Arms.
It was never decided by the Catering Sub-Committee, nor were instructions given, that this notice should be published. However, it would be true to say that in the anxiety and concern that the facilities of the House should be made available to all, including members of staff, there were some difficulties to be overcome. In that anxiety the imprecise language left some room for concern. I have looked at the correspondence and I do not believe that any one person is responsible for the imprecise language in that correspondence.
Instructions have been given that until such times as the Catering Sub-Committee reaches a decision and conveys it through the usual channels, no person can assume to act in the Sub-Committee's name. In consultation with the authorities of the House I asked that this notice be withdrawn. That request was made yesterday. There has been difficulty in communicating this position to every hon. Member, particularly to those who are involved.
For my part I sincerely regret any inconvenience which may have been caused.

Mr. Skinner: The power which the Serjeant at Arms wields is considerable. One acknowledges that some of that power is due to the authority given to

him by the Services Committee and to some extent by you, Mr. Speaker and your department. However, there is a matter for concern regarding special permits for visitors from our constituencies. In this respect we are coming up against a block which means that for the period of June and July none of these visitors is allowed to come along the Palace route. But upon investigation, and upon trying to circumvent the problem by booking an interview room to enable me to take visitors through a few at a time, I find that the place is swarming with tourists. Perhaps we have to encourage tourists to come to London and to look at the House of Commons in order to help solve the balance of payments problems. On confronting one of the tourist hostesses I was informed that special permits are not gained through any of the offices of any Members of Parliament on either side of the House, but are gained apparently through other offices.
If the Serjeant at Arms can allow batches of American tourists from Miami to visit this place, as was the case yesterday, while at the same time electors from my constituency and other constituencies are thwarted from entering the House of Commons and having a look around, there must be something sadly wrong. My guess is that the Services Committee did not know of this practice which is taking place.
It may be that the idea of having some restriction on our own visitors in June and July is sensible, but this cannot be satisfactory when we see a lot of other visitors floating about in this place while we are unable to get passes for our visitors for the remainder of the parliamentary Session.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of running into this problem head-on yesterday I was politely informed by one of the people within the House that if I carted round the House of Commons and the House of Lords visitors on behalf of someone from the other place I would not need a permit—and on Thursday week I shall be doing precisely that.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot prevent hon. Members raising points of order and I shall carefully consider what has been said. There has to be a certain amount of consultation as well as give and take


in the House. We are in difficult times. I knew nothing of either of the problems which have been raised. Had I known about them I should have done my best to try to resolve them.
It is my intention that nothing should be done which has not my authority, or my authority upon the advice of the Services Committee, or unless it is something which has been decided by the Leader of the House, after consultation in the usual channels.
It will be of assistance to the House and will save time on the Floor of the House if I am asked in other ways to deal with specific problems when they arise. I shall do my best to do so.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm your ruling that hon. Members shall be notified, and see that your ruling is enforced?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly do my best.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

RATES

Mr. Speaker: Almost 50 right hon. and hon. Members have told me that they want to speak in the debate which is to follow. We are starting rather late, which is not altogether my fault, but with a self-denying ordinance all round, including both back bench and Front Bench speakers, perhaps we shall be able to manage fairly well as we have done on previous occasions, including in particular one or two occasions in the last Parliament.
I understand the anxiety of hon. Members who have a strong constituency interest in the subject of the debate. I shall do my best, but there is no point in hon. Members coming to the Chair to ask about their chances of being called. However, if they indicate that they can say what they have to say in five minutes, it might improve their chances.

4.25 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I beg to move,
That this House, in view of the massive increases in rates in many areas greatly in excess of the growth of incomes, stresses the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure of interim relief this year for the benefit of those worst affected and to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebate.
The motion is deliberately phrased in moderate terms. The purpose is clearly stated—it is to help the ratepayer now. The motion contains three parts—we try to deal first with the immediate situation, then the longer-term situation and finally the question of water and sewerage rates.
With regard to the immediate situation, people have for years complained about rates, but they have paid them, usually on time. The losses to the local authorities through failure to pay have been minimal. This year not only have there been the most vociferous complaints ever but people have been threatening to withhold payment of rates, or that part of the rates


which exceeds money growth in incomes, which, taking the personal disposable income as a yardstick, was 12½ per cent. between the end of 1972 and the end of 1973.
Over the years local authority expenditure has risen faster than the growth of the economy. In spite of attempts to relieve the burden on ratepayers, the weight of tax on the ratepayer has risen. While over the years there have been anomalies in the rating system, so long as the amount raised by rates was comparatively small people would bear the anomalies. But when the amount to be raised became larger than ever before people naturally objected strenuously.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends will have seen innumerable deputations from the counties. After they had seen him, or one of his Ministers, they came to see me. There have been deputations from many parts of the country, including Cornwall, Northampton, Norfolk, Somerset, Lincolnshire, Dorset, North-East Derbyshire and Cheshire, and also from the newly-formed ratepayers' action groups.
All those people have been to see us about increases in rates, the reasons for which I shall try to analyse in a moment. Their rate demands show increases of up to, and occasionally in excess of, 100 per cent. Many of them have increases of between 70 and 80 per cent. These increases go far beyond anything for which they have budgeted, and many of them are in no position to pay.
That is the position in many parts of the country, particularly, but not exclusively, in those areas adversely affected by the abolition of the variable domestic relief.
The right hon. Gentleman, much as I regret it, is in the seat of power, and he is the only person who can now introduce a major relief. He and his Ministers justified rent freezes on the ground that if people's incomes were restrained it would be wrong if their rents were to be increased. Similar reasoning could also be applied to rates.
I make it clear that, although people are threatening to withhold their rates, I would never advise anyone to withhold rates contrary to the law. Any member of any Oppositon who urged people to

disobey the law would morally have forfeited the right to expect others to obey his Government's laws. Unless the rule of law is upheld, society will have lost its most valuable asset. But if that is our advice to our constituents, when we are presented with genuine and serious grievances by the most law-abiding citizens it is our duty to try to redress those grievances.
The Secretary of State has a choice—he can do something or he can do nothing. I can assure him that if he had my hon. Friends behind him he would not be allowed to do nothing.

Mr. Max Madden: Can the right hon. Lady tell us what obstacles to reform of the rating system the Conservative Government were confronted with?

Mrs. Thatcher: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that neither party has managed to reform fundamentally the rating system. That is not the only question at issue, and I will come to it later. At the moment, I am concerned with the short-term problem in which people are faced with massive increases which, try as they will, they cannot meet. This is causing many human problems which must be as well known to hon. Members opposite as they are to us. The Secretary of State will doubtless try to blame it all on us. I shall, therefore, trace the events which led to the rate support grant order which was issued by the right hon. Gentleman in March.
First, a thorough reorganisation of local government was required, which, presumably, was why the last Labour Government set up the Radcliffe-Maud Commission. In spite of criticism, the terms of reference of the commission failed to include the financing of local government. Yet it would have made sense to consider the powers of local government and one's belief in devolution and dispersion of power along with the method of financing local government. That was the only sane and proper way to do it.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) introduced reorganisation. It was a measure different from that proposed by the then Opposition, but I believe that any measure involving larger authorities would have had substantially the same


effect. The economies of scale are often elusive, and "bigger" tends to mean "dearer". When it came to deciding to which tier education should go in the metropolitan areas, the then Opposition urged me to put it to the top tier. I refused to do so and kept it with the smaller authorities. "Bigger" again would have meant "dearer", and I believe that keeping education to the lower tier means a more personal service.
Thirdly, the Conservative Government moved some small blocks of expenditure away from local authorities to central Government. In particular, the local health services and 90 per cent. of the cost of students awards were moved to the central Exchequer to protect the ratepayer. The saving to local authorities at November 1973 prices was some £348 million, and if we had not done it that burden now would go on the ratepayers.
Fourthly, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we believe in containing local public expenditure. To substantiate my accusation, I will quote from a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Labour Party's local government conference last year. The report was published in The Guardian on 12th February 1973. The report quoted him as saying:
At a time of high taxation—and taxation should be high under a Labour government if we are to carry out our social programmes—we shall never find another source of as much money as accrues through the rating system.
It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman believes in high taxation. We, on the contrary, usually succeed in having lower taxation, and this cannot be achieved without rigorous scrutiny of local expenditure for the purpose of determining the amount of relevant expenditure. Last year, when we were doing the relevant expenditure estimates, my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) announced in December a reduction in expenditure of which £111 million was to be saved by the local authorities. The present Government have adhered to those cuts, although they had denounced them in Opposition. If those cuts had not been made, the rates would be still higher now.
A level of inflation of 9 per cent. was the position at which the expenditure level for local authorities was finalised. It is,

of course, customary to take care of any further increases by rate support grant increase orders. The final result of the relevant expenditure negotiations permitted a growth of only 2½ per cent. in local authority expenditure in real terms over the previous year.
Some of the authorities which have suffered the biggest rate increases—and I have been over the accounts of Somerset and Norfolk in particular—are those which have adhered in every respect to the last Government's request for economy. They have implemented the cuts; they have allowed for only 9 per cent. inflation; some have even had to lower the standards of their services to protect the ratepayers. But, even having done all these things, they are faced with rate increases on declining services in excess of 50, 60, 70 or 80 per cent. My own local authority managed to keep to an increase of only 9 per cent. for inflation—and I remind the House that I represent a London constituency. The Chairman of the Barnet Finance Committee said:
The Conservative Government in making every determined effort to control inflation requested local authorities to reduce capital expenditure by 20 per cent. and revenue expenditure (excluding salaries, wages and loan charges) by 10 per cent., so as to limit the increase in the domestic rate to 9 per cent. This has been done so far as Barnet's own expenditure is concerned, and the increase for domestic ratepayers would have been no more than 9 per cent. had the Greater London Council played its part in a spirit of co-operation in the true interests of the ratepayers and the country as a whole.
Next, a rate support grant representing the highest percentage grant of all time, was made to local authorities to help them to keep the rates down. It meant 60·5 per cent. of their relevant expenditure being met by the taxpayers—a further effort on the part of the Conservative Government to reduce the rates payable.

Mr. David Ginsburg: The right hon. Lady has omitted from her historical catalogue the order for mandatory differential rating, laid by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Conservative Government on 7th February, not long before the General Election. It led to substantial increases in rates, including my constituency.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is true that we laid an order for mandatory differential


rating. I agree also that the Local Government (Finance) Act was hurried through the other place in one day, otherwise some other amendments might have been made. But it was vital, when we had the election, to get the Act through in one day. The new formula for the distribution of that grant was slanted to the benefit of the cities—sufficiently, we thought, bearing in mind the needs of the rural areas.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that a sum of £448 million was allocated to domestic rate relief, and in principle this was to be distributed on the basis of the largest increase in rates to warrant the largest relief. Those increases in rates which ranked for relief included water and sewerage rates. At the time when those allocations were made by us on that equitable principle local budgets had not been made up.

Mr. Joseph Dean: When the right hon. Lady speaks of "fair and equitable" does she consider the fact that some people in Cornwall were receiving as much as 40p personal assistance on their rates as against 7p in the Trafford area? Is that her idea of "fair and equitable"?

Mrs. Thatcher: But the reason they were to receive 40p was that otherwise they would have suffered the largest rate increases. It seems to me to be an equitable principle that those who suffered the largest percentage increase should have received the largest amount of relief.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Mr. Joseph Dean rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: I am sorry, I cannot give way again. As the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend gave 33p to Wales he must have recognised the need for some differential between the needs of Wales and England. When we allocated the domestic relief on the basis I have indicated the local budgets had not been drawn up and we were working on the basis of calculations. There were a few exceptional areas, and Trafford is one, where I believe the calculations were wrong, and corrections would have had to have been made when the facts became known; but before the facts became known a General Election intervened, and when the right hon. Gentleman came to do his computer runs the budgets were known and he had all the

necessary facts in order to distribute the £448 million on a different equitable basis if he wished. I will give way for the last time.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: The last communication which the Conservative Government sent to local authorities informing them of the domestic rate relief was on 20th February. Is the right hon. Lady suggesting there would have been some changes in local government estimates then, and is she suggesting that any more money would have been forthcoming from a Conservative Government seven or eight days later had the election gone the other way?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have been with us when we debated the rate support grant order or he would have heard me refer to the similar situation we got immediately after rating revaluation when, after the facts were known, more money was made available because my hon. Friends insisted that it should be. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman altered the whole distribution of the £448 million domestic relief. That aggravated the situation in a number of rural areas already facing serious problems, and they are rightly resentful of that.
When the right hon. Gentleman came to allocate the relief the facts were known, and he could have had a different system of distribution so as to have alleviated some of the 70, 80 or 90 per cent. increases had he chosen to do so. He did not choose. He himself called it rough justice and used the word "capricious". We say it was not justice but was very rough and capricious. Reports of increased staffs for the new authorities were rife and among the offenders were some of the new Socialist authorities; and some of the bitterest attacks in council were those made by Conservatives on the Metropolitan counties for putting the staff up beyond any reasonable assessment of need. I have with me copies of a speech by Alderman Bellow, of Leeds, and attacks made on the West Yorkshire Authority for the very extravagant policy it was following. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in January ordered an urgent inquiry into complaints about extravagant overstaffing and excessive salaries of chief officers in


reorganised local councils. We are still awaiting the result.
All these steps were taken by the Conservative Government to try to protect the ratepayer from severe increases. We could not protect him from local authority expenditure above the limit of relevant expenditure. All the extra fell heavily on the ratepayer because it would not attract grant, but that is a matter for the local authorities themselves. The domestic relief which has now been given by the right hon. Gentleman on the basis of an equal 13p and 33p in Wales would not be altered or taken back, so this year we have to accept the right hon. Gentleman's distribution and its consequences. But unless some extra interim relief is found to help those worst affected in time for the autumn rates demand we can see a bitter and desperate situation developing.
There is a precedent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale after revaluation was faced with rating anomalies. I told the right hon. Gentleman the last time we debated the rate support grant that my right hon. Friend made available a sum of money—I agree a much smaller sum than would now be required—for relief that year. The right hon. Gentleman will by now have a full list of rate demands and knows the percentage increases over last year. I have only the limited list published by the Rating and Valuation Association. The kind of order needed and the distribution would have to be left to his Department in consultation with the local authorities, as was the case when we had the other relief after rating revaluation.
I quote what my right hon. Friend then said in his Budget speech on 6th March 1973:
After discussion with the local authority representatives, the Government therefore propose to phase the effects for those hardest hit by meeting half the cost above 10 per cent. of any increases in domestic rate bills in 1973–74 which are attributable solely to the effects of revaluation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 268.]
In this case, when the facts were known we took action. We did not limit ourselves to expressions of sympathy. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that deputations have been received most courteously by his Department. His Ministers have been very sympathetic. It is simply

that they have failed to take any kind of action afterwards.
There is one point I should mention before leaving the question of interim relief, arising from a deputation from North-East Derbyshire including the area formerly administered by the urban district of Clay Cross. At its meeting on Saturday last, the North-East Derbyshire District Council passed a resolution calling on the Minister to allow the council to levy a special rate on Clay Cross sufficient to cover the amount of any deficit inherited from that council. It is impossible to be precise about the amount of the deficit. It could be as little as £75,000 or as much as £500,000.
There is strong feeling among the ordinary people in North-East Derbyshire, regardless of their usual party affiliation, that no part of that deficit should be paid by the people of North-East Derbyshire other than those who live in Clay Cross. Ten of the parish councils in North-East Derbyshire have already indicated to the district council that they are not prepared to meet any part of the deficit. There exists in North-East Derbyshire a situation in which a great many ordinary people may find themselves disobeying the law by refusing to pay any rate which relates directly to the Clay Cross deficit. In our view the Government must give favourable consideration to relieving North-East Derbyshire from the burden arising from Clay Cross and I hope they will do so.
I shall now say a few things about the longer-term position on rates. As a result of Question Time today I understand from what was said by the Prime Minister and from the amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has put down that he is going to announce—to quote the words I expect to hear from him later—"a fundamental review of local government finance". Most of us would welcome this but I am not quite sure what kind of review he will announce.
May I urge what we on this side have come to know as a James-type inquiry? We feel that a Royal Commission takes a very long time. When we had an inquiry on teacher training it was of a different kind. We took a comparatively small number of people, about seven or eight, and asked them to sit fulltime and report within a year. The James inquiry did that. I think


that the situation now is such that people would wish any fundamental review to be undertaken quickly and not at the rather leisurely speed which is customary with reviews meeting only once a week or once a month and embarking on a great deal of research.
I should like to make some further points about the longer term. First, any fundamental changes must be considered in conjunction with the powers of local authorities, their degree of independence and the nation's philosophy on the distribuion of power. Local authorities carry out their tasks better than Whitehall could, although many of us may have criticisms of the way that some of them discharge their duties from time to time.
Second, before adopting major changes local authorities would have to be consulted. That is obvious. To do otherwise would be high-handed and arrogant.
Third, I accept the thesis not wholly accepted by some of the many local authorities that I have seen that the Chancellor should have control over the level of public expenditure. As local authority expenditure is arranged now, he has not got that control, particularly on the revenue side. For example, in 1973–74 the difference on the estimate and the provisional outturn of local authority expenditure was over £200 million in real terms. That can make a serious difference to the Chancellor's Budget.
I accept that the central Exchequer must be able to determine the top level of local authority expenditure, but to do this the Chancellor must give himself the requisite powers.
This becomes even more important when considering the possible transfer of further items of expenditure from the local to the national budget. We transferred nearly £350 million worth. I believe that we should get the worst of all possible worlds if the Chancellor had to raise more tax to meet the transferred expenditure and local authorities then added further items to their budgets instead of reducing the rates proportionately.
Fourth, I hope that the review will involve an investigation into the consequences of financing local authorities in block grant money terms rather than the present method. This would give strict

control over the upper limit of expenditure. It may be objected that such a scheme would mean the end of local authority independence. I do not think so. A similar method is used for financing the universities, and no one suggests that that is an example of central control. Rather it is quoted to illustrate university autonomy.
Fifth, a review body would obviously look at the effect of a local income tax on various income groups in different areas where wages and salaries varied greatly and at the varying income from a sales or turnover tax.
I should be grateful if at some stage today—perhaps in the reply—I can be given the answer to one particular question. I have the impression—perhaps past experience comes in—that the Inland Revenue could not at the moment contemplate the administration of another tax because it is still very much occupied with the work involved in moving to a tax credit scheme. If so, the option of a local income tax would be closed for some time.
Sixth, any change in the system of local government finance should not involve the creation of a new bureaucracy to operate it. People do not like it and it would be expensive compared with the tax collected.
Seventh, there will be cities with special problems which need special subventions of a kind for which the rate support grant, I admit, is not at present fitted. London will be in difficulties later because of the awards recommended in the Pay Board's report on the London allowance. I understand that that will rank for relevant expenditure, but there is no way of ensuring that the grant attracted by that expenditure will find its way into London where the expenditure is incurred. We must find a way of getting special grants to cities with special problems.
I turn now to the third part of the motion relating to water and sewerage charges. To put it mildly, the demands of the new authorities have in many areas been unexpectedly high. The right hon. Gentleman's answer no doubt would have been nationalisation. But bigger still would probably have meant dearer still. I hope that someone in his Department will go through the demands of the water authorities to see whether they are


justified. At a time when their capital expenditure has been cut, it is difficult to understand why they should be making such heavy demands. I suspect that they may be attempting to build up a reserve out of the rates for the first year or two years. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out the same kind of monitoring as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby on rates during the early period of counter-inflation. I believe that due to his action the rate increase that year was prevented from rising still further.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Thatcher: No. I have given way many times already. I am concerned to continue, because many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate.
Many deputations have reported the difficulty of getting adequate information from the new water authorities. The authorities must be told to give the information that is required. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has made that perfectly clear.
The problem of a charge for a sewerage or water service which is absent has arisen many times. The final insult was having to pay to have a septic tank emptied in addition to paying the main drainage rate. [Interruption.] We discussed this matter on the Control of Pollution Bill. I pointed out that in the Bill the Government had retained the power of local authorities to make a charge. I suggested that that power should be deleted from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has power in Section 30(1) and (6) of the Water Act 1973 to give directions to the water authorities regarding charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and others of my hon. Friends also took up that point in Committee on the Control of Pollution Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is creating many difficulties which do not really exist.
On the allowance for rate rebate, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt point to the previous Government's decision at the earlier stage of the Bill dealing with local government finance not to let it be rebated. We took account of the increases in water and sewerage rates in distributing domestic relief on a variable basis. The

present system has reduced that because it was an even distribution.
The only further relief I can find that was provided by the previous Government is in a letter of 29th January, 1974 from the Department to local authorities and water authorities which stated:
The charge is also not subject, in principle, to remission on grounds of poverty, but the Department accepts that it would be unreasonable to expect a rating authority who allowed remission of rates on these grounds in any case to proceed to recover the charge in that case. They will be authorised therefore to treat as irrecoverable the sewerage charge payable by any person to whom they or the magi-states have remitted the rate and should take this into account in estimating losses on collection.
The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill to secure full rebate for water and sewerage charges. We fully support that. I hope that the Government will now take steps to deal with these matters, because there is very strong feeling about them.
The Government amendment refers to the effects of inflation. The rate of inflation over the last 12 months was published on Friday. On Saturday 22nd June The Times said:
The recorded rise in retail prices over the last 12 months has now edged up to 16 per cent. The annual rates of change have been 22·1 per cent. over the last half year and 25·3 over the last three months.
So the rate of inflation is now accelerating. What hope, therefore, for the ratepayer next year? [Interruption.] I shall not make a point about the accelerating rate of inflation. My point is that even an increase of 16 per cent. through inflation does not and cannot account for increases in rates of anything up to 100 per cent. It is absurd to try to use that defence to suggest that it does. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, but that is his chosen defence in his amendment.
The situation has been made infinitely worse by the right hon. Gentleman's own decisions in respect of some of the towns and the rural areas and his attitude to expenditure to be borne by the ratepayer. If he refuses to redress this grievance, if he and every one of his hon. Friends on the back benches refuse to grant a measure of relief, he will deserve and receive the censure of the nation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the Secretary of State, I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected for debate the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and the names of his right hon. Friends.

5.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I beg to move to leave out from "greatly" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
caused by the inflationary policies of the previous administration, endorses the decision of Her Majesty's Government to undertake a fundamental review of Local Government finance.
We have naturally assumed for some time past that the Opposition would want a debate on "the rates". But we have waited with mounting curiosity to see the exact terms of the motion which they would put down and the names of the signatories to it. I can well understand their difficulties, given their own record in government, and fully appreciate why certain names are conspicuously absent from the list of signatories, and, I may say, absent from the House today as well.
I start by saying how strongly I agree with the first clause in the motion, which refers to
the massive increases of rates in many areas greatly in excess of the growth of incomes.
To understand why this massive increase has occurred, I fear I must delve a little into recent history, for the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) showed marked signs of selective amnesia.
On 22nd January this year, only a few days before the General Election was announced, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), introducing the then Government's White Paper on the Rate Support Grant for 1974–75, used these words:
I believe that the percentage rise in domestic rate burdens can be kept to a maximum of about 9 per cent. subject to any exceptional local circumstances. In a number of cases, particularly in the cities, there should actually be a decrease in the domestic rate burden. The average national increase should accordingly be about 3 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January 1974; Vol. 867, c. 1469.]
This statement was greeted with astonished incredulity by all the leaders

of the local government world, Conservative as well as Labour, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and others in this House. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who is not present—himself believed it, or whether he had simply looked into the entrails of a chicken, or whether he was under instructions to keep his doubts to himself—at any rate until after 28th February. Unfortunately, the public believed it, which is no doubt why the Opposition joined the bandwagon as soon as it started to roll.
What actually happened—in contrast to that statement—can be quickly described. We have now received details of their rates from 255 local authorities. First, I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predicted maximum increase of 9 per cent. In the event, the average domestic rate increase would have been within the maximum of 9 per cent. under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's variable domestic relief proposal in precisely 10 of these 255 cases. That leaves us with no fewer than 245 sets of "exceptional local circumstances". These include examples such as South Tyneside, where the increase would have been 75 per cent. and many other places I could mention.
Next, I take the national average increase in domestic rates—prophesied to be about 3 per cent. It has not been 3 per cent. It has been 30 per cent. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham distinguished himself by making a forecasting error of almost 1,000 per cent. No wonder he is not a signatory to this motion, though his talents clearly call for recognition in other fields, and I will gladly sponsor any application he may think of making for employment as a television weather forecaster. Ratepayers are naturally infuriated by the huge discrepancy between what they were told they would pay and what they are actually paying. Equally naturally, they are accusing local government of extravagance, and central Government of duplicity.
Let me set the record straight. When I came into office I altered neither the total of local authority relevant expenditure, nor the total of rate support grant, which I inherited from my predecessor. Nationally, therefore—I am speaking


nationally; I shall come to the domestic element—neither the domestic nor the non-domestic rate increase is one penny more as a result of any change in the total support going from central Government to local government.
Why, then, did my predecessor's statements turn out so grotesquely wrong? The unsurprising answer is that the greater part of the increase is due to inflation—last year's as well as this year's. Misled by the Tory Government's bland assurances, local authorities made quite inadequate provision for inflation in their 1973–74 budgets. In consequence, many ran their balances right down, and many had to resort to extremely costly short-term borrowing. All of this had to be made good by the new authorities in their rate for 1974–75 and they had also, of course, to provide for the further pay and price increases which were already in the pipeline for this year. It restored my faith in human nature to hear that even after their disagreeable experiences in 1973–74 some local authority treasurers actually accepted the previous Government's forecast of a 9 per cent, inflation rate. They must be kicking themselves now. Fortunately, many of their colleagues were quicker to draw the moral.
Past and present inflation and the building up of balances appear to account for about three-quarters of the national rate increase this year on the figures that we have.
A further factor is, of course, the growth in real terms of local authority expenditure. The previous administration tried to curb this growth by the December expenditure cuts. But these came extremely late in the authorities' budgeting process. So it was hardly surprising that local government was less successful than in the past in cutting back its expenditure in response to Government appeals.
That leaves us with the extra cost of local government reorganisation, and the bizarre consequences of the reorganisation of water and sewerage. We on the Government side of the House prophesied these again and again during the long debates on the Local Government Act 1972 and the Water Act 1973. There is not even a melancholy satisfaction in seeing our prophecies proved right. I feel only regret that hon. Members of

the Opposition did not devote their energies at an earlier stage, before, for example, the Water Act became law, to rooting out the myriad anomalies which they are now parading before us with such avid zeal.
So the broad picture is clear. This years' unprecedented rate increases are due to two major factors—past and present inflation and the growth in services with inflation by far the greater influence—and two lesser factors—local government reorganisation and water reorganisation. None of these was the work of the present Government, nor have we altered the total scale of central Government support. So the national average increases of 30 per cent. for the domestic ratepayer and 40 per cent. for the non-domestic are wholly the result of decisions and policies that were inherited.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How does the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 30 per cent. square with the answer he gave me yesterday about the increase in the total domestic rate call which works out at less than 25 per cent.? Has he taken a series of percentage increases and made an average of those without splitting the real increase in the rate demand?

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Member will know that the rate call and the domestic rate burden are not the same thing. The figures I am quoting now are for the actual domestic rate burden, which is what the ratepayer pays.
In this situation, some people argue that it was our duty, on taking office, to increase the amount of Government grant to local authorities above the figure already announced by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham. There is a very short answer to that. Leaving aside altogether the economic situation which we inherited, it was simply far too late to do anything about the total grant.
Honourable Members with experience of local government know only too well what utter chaos would have resulted had we sought in the early weeks of March to reopen the whole question of the total of rate support grant, and so left local government to stagger into reorganisation without knowing what rate it was supposed to be levying, or when it could hope to levy it. So, for the simplest prac


tical reasons, there was no question of reopening the entire rate support grant settlement.
The one change I made was to redistribute not the £446 million, as the right hon. Member for Finchley implied, but some £200 million of the domestic element—about 7 per cent. of the total grant of over £3,000 million. We discussed this in detail during the debate on the Rate Support Grant Order. I need no reminding that the decision has aroused strong opposition in many parts of the country. But I remain unrepentant. The situation which I inherited was quite illogical. The last Government had tried desperately to be all things to all men. They had to present themselves as the friends of the inner cities. They could not possibly ignore the overwhelming evidence that the conurbations had been shabbily treated in the past. So their first decision was, and rightly, to redistribute the grant towards the cities. But then they remembered, and were no doubt vociferously reminded, that they had more long-standing loyalties elsewhere, and hence the last-minute decision to introduce variable domestic relief—a hastily erected camouflage net designed to reassure their supporters that nothing had changed after all.
Politically much the easiest course for me would have been to accept our entire inheritance from the previous Government and blame everything on them. It would have made my life a good deal easier in my constituency had I done so. But I was not prepared to put my name to such a shoddy piece of work and perpetuate the injustices under which the inner cities had suffered for so many years. There was no reason—and I take a highly controversial case—why householders in Cornwall should have gone on paying an average of £40 a year and householders in Manchester £93 a year, even making full allowance for the different levels of income and local authority services, and ignoring altogether the discrepancy in the quality of life between the two areas—

Hon. Members: Wales.

Mr. Tom King: Whatever the arguments about the relative position of ratepayers, is not the crucial point that if there is to be an adjustment

there is a limit to the amount of adjustment in one year. The essence of the problem, which the right hon. Gentleman knows from his discussions when he has courteously received hon. Members on this point, is that my constituents and many others just cannot manage the scale of increase in one year?

Mr. Crosland: I take the point which the hon. Member makes and which he and his hon. Friends put to me strongly when they saw me on behalf of the West Country in particular. However, had I not altered the domestic element, and had I left the variable domestic element, which would probably have proved unworkable in practice, there would have been rate increases in different parts of the country and some of the conurbations equivalent to those which have occurred this year.

Mr. Robert Adley: Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington) rose—

Mr. Crosland: I will not give way. The right hon. Member for Finchley took over 35 minutes—I do not criticise her for that—and I should like to finish in less time if I can.
No one disputed that this year has seen a quite unprecedented upsurge of public anger over rates. Rates have never been, to put it mildly, a popular tax. There have always been a few cases, here and there, of people refusing to pay. But the householders' reaction to this year's increases for once almost justifies the journalists' favourite term "a ratepayers' revolt". I hope that householders will pay up, and I was glad that the right hon. Member for Finchley made her position clear that she would not support any refusal to pay. Any widespread failure to pay up, leading to a shortfall of rate income this year, will simply lead to massive deficits which will have to be made up, at high rates of interest, in future years.
But we are all agreed that we cannot leave it at that. Ratepayers have a right to expect a more positive response. They are not simply saying that this year's rate burden is unreasonable. They want a radical re-examination of the whole system.
To begin with, we must do what we can to improve matters within the present legal framework. We are already reviewing the rate support grant distribution for next year to see how it can be made


more equitable. A whole range of possible changes is under discussion with the local authority associations, including two, in particular, that have been pressed on me by many hon. Members in all parts of the House. The first is that we should take full account of the level of wages and other incomes in an area, which I am determined to do for next year's grant. The other is that we should do something to help those authorities most affected by reorganisation—whether completely new authorities starting from scratch, or counties which have lost much of their former area and population.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do anything about those counties which are particularly affected by town expansion schemes? I was grateful to one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues for seeing a deputation from Northamptonshire, which has four expanding towns and which are a burden to existing ratepayers.

Mr. Crosland: This point has been made to us by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) and a number of other hon. Members whose authorities face similar problems. We shall bear the matter in mind in our discussions.
I now turn to the long-term future and the phrase in the Opposition motion which
stresses the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system".
There must be joy in Heaven today—not just one sinner that repenteth, but the whole massed ranks of the Tory Party. We have seen nothing like it since the Emperor Constantine changed the religion of his subjects in a single afternoon—at a stroke, to put it boringly—and I must, therefore, bear in mind the attitude of the Tories during their four years of office.
First, we had the 1971 Green Paper on the future of local government finance. This was an elegant and ingenious essay on the impossibility of any major change. The traditional list of proposals, from local income tax to lotteries, was described in tones of ill-concealed disdain, and every imaginable, and unimaginable, objection was meticulously recorded. But at least the Green Paper did not finally dismiss each and every one of the sug-

gestions for a radical restructuring. That was left to a still more bland and obscurantist document, curiously described as a "consultation paper", which appeared in June 1973, "in order", as it said, "to finalise this matter". "Finalisation", in fact, meant the postponement for the foreseeable future of any further consideration of alternative sources of local revenue.
In case any doubts were left as to the Tory Government's adamant resistance to fundamental reform, they were laid at rest by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—on 12th November during the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, when he said:
I should like to comment on the reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, which criticises the Government for not providing additional sources of local finance. I reject that criticism completely, in so far as the Government do not think that this is the right time to introduce new local taxes. The system of rates, the local authorities' own tax, is well tried, well known and easy and cheap to administer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 36.]
Just in case any doubt was left even after that, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—said in winding-up the debate:
Many hon. Members have indicated that we cannot leave the rating system where it is, and it has been suggested, particularly from the Opposition Front Bench, that we should have a Royal Commission. I do not think we should get any further by means of a Royal Commission than we did by the Green Paper of two years ago … it would be both disastrous and defeatist to put the whole matter back into the melting pot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 148.]
Is that really the same right hon. Member who, newly relieved of the burden of office, told the House on 25th March how wonderfully simple everything would be if expenditure on education, law enforcement, fire-fighting, and so on were transferred wholly to the Exchequer, and whose youthful ardour on lotteries carried the day against all our attempts to curb his impetuosity?
To round off the story of the Conservative Party's attitude when in Government, I may add that there was not a word in its election manifesto on reform of the rating system, or new initiatives


on local government finance. There was, however, one document which said that
we have to look afresh at the whole system of rating and of Exchequer grants to local authorities".
That document was "Labour's Programme 1973". At a time when Conservative leaders rejected it utterly, the idea of a far-reaching inquiry was firmly in our minds.
At that time we were inclined to favour a Royal Commission, but after giving further thought to the matter—here I agree with the right hon. Lady—we now think that something less formal is required. But the question of the title is relatively unimportant. What is crucial is that it should be a wholly independent inquiry. It is absolutely clear that the public will not be fobbed off for a second time with a half-hearted, hole-in-corner internal review of the sort that produced the 1971 Green Paper.
Accordingly, in fulfilment of the commitment in "Labour's Programme", I can now announce that the Government have decided to set up a full-scale inquiry into local government finance. I propose to give the inquiry wide terms of reference—much wider than what is proposed in the Opposition motion. It will be asked simply to review the whole system of local government finance and to make recommendations. That means that no suggestions for improving any aspect of local government finance will be excluded from consideration—not even site-value rating, though I scarcely know whether that proposal has survived the recent heady and cynical talk of a Liberal-Tory coalition.
There is, of course, no painless way of finding the enormous sums of money that local government needs. Nevertheless, dissatisfaction with the present rating system is now both more violent and more universal than any of us have probably known it to be in our lifetimes. The time has come when we must take a long hard look at the whole system, with no reform, no alternative, no solution ruled off the agenda in advance.
I shall ask the committee to make its recommendations as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of 1975. Obviously, I should like, if I could, to set a still tighter deadline, but these are immensely complex matters, and if we

are to get the right answers we must not rush the inquiry into producing a hasty and ill-considered report.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Mr. Paul Tyler (Bodmin) rose—

Mr. Crosland: I am reluctant to give way, because we have been told that 50 hon. Members want to speak.
I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales are now considering the membership of the inquiry. I shall make a further announcement. To give the House a brief idea of the kind of categories of member I have in mind, I can say that I should like a chairman of unimpeachable standing, but not himself drawn from local government. For the members, we want elected local authority members, local authority officials, independent financial experts and economists, and representatives of business and of the trade unions.
The third part of the motion
urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure of interim relief".
There is nothing I should like to do more, although the urging comes oddly from the party that imposed the violent expenditure cuts of last December. The money it refused to spend in December it asks us to spend in June. Unfortunately, things are not as simple as that.
I have made it clear that the committee of inquiry will be concerned not with the interim problems raised by this part of the motion but with the long-term issues and the whole nature of the system. But I hope I have also made it quite clear—and, if not, I underline it again—that I am extremely conscious of the shorter-term problem and of the real hardship which many ratepayers are facing this year. I shall certainly consider with great care any points and ideas put forward in this debate which bear on the immediate situation. But there are, as the House well knows, acutely difficult questions of priorities in the field of public expenditure. I am willing to look at all the possibilities, but I cannot give any commitment today.
I must say a word about the precedent the right hon. Lady quoted—the previous Government's 1973 revaluation relief. It is not a precedent that helps a great deal. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham certainly received a great deal of undeserved publicity very cheaply. He


offered only £9 million to a small and select group of ratepayers whose properties had for many years been undervalued. But the scale as well as the nature of the problem are very different this year. If we adopted the same principle, meeting half of any domestic rate increase in excess of 10 per cent., the cost would be not £9 million this year but a good £100 million. If we were to carry out the previous Government's promise to ratepayers and held the average domestic rate increase down to 3 per cent., we should have to pay out an additional £300 million—hardly the kind of sum one could disburse without the most intense parliamentary scrutiny.
The last clause in the motion urges us
to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebate".
This is a very ironical suggestion indeed. It would have been wholly unnecessary if the Tory Government had heeded our warnings and had not introduced the 1973 Water Act. Instead, they took water and sewerage off the rates and out of local democratic control, and substituted a system of direct charges. Not content with that, they brought a further confusion to the minds of the public by requiring the local authorities to act as collecting agents for the new water authorities. Therefore, we have the extraordinary position that sewerage charges are collected together with the rate but no longer form part of the rate. Not being part of the rate, they do not, and cannot any longer, attract rate rebates. That was the legacy that the Opposition left us. It has at last dawned on the Opposition that this is a somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs.
We shall do our best to unravel the tangle which they have left us all in, though it is clearly too late to go back on the entire reorganisation. Once the water authorities have had a chance to sort out the various financial problems that confront them this year, we shall get down to reviewing with them various aspects of water service charges for the coming years. This includes, of course, the question of rebates. Picking our way through the obstacles placed in our path by the Water Act, we shall consider—without commitment at this stage—what the possibilities are. But the House must recognise that any new rebate scheme would require either a Government sub-

sidy, which I understand to be contrary to the philosophy of the Water Act, or a further general increase in the level of all water service charges. In any event, new legislation would be required.
But I am quite convinced, from discussions I have already had with the chairmen of the water authorities, that we must, as soon as possible, enable water authorities to collect water and sewerage charges direct. I want the use of local authorities as collecting agents to be confined to a short transitional period.
A word now about the associated problem of sewerage charges levied on premises not connected to main drainage, something which has caused enormous trouble. The previous administration apparently felt obliged to provide for the levying of sewerage charges this year on all ratepayers regardless of whether they received the service. Here again we are left to deal with the consequences of their actions.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House recently, we shall do our best to speed up the administrative arrangements needed to identify those properties which cannot be connected to public sewers in the hope that it will be possible to give them some relief from those charges next year.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) rose—

Mr. Crosland: With great respect, I cannot give way. I am dealing with anomalies left behind by the Water Act and telling the House how we propose to sort them out.
I have spoken of the two major anomalies. There is also widespread anger at the scale of the increases that have taken place in water and sewerage charges, particularly in areas such as the West Country. No doubt some increased spending on water services would have been necessary, with or without reorganisation. I fear that the warnings we gave in Opposition about the additional cost caused by reorganisation, higher salaries, increased administrative costs and so on have proved to be only too well-founded.
The water industry is now a peculiar animal—half a nationalised industry, half a local government service. The new direct water charge is no longer a part


of the local rate. My present view, therefore, is not to include it in the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry into local government finance, although I still have an open mind. A general study of the economic and financial objectives of the water authorities is already being undertaken by a steering group comprising officials in the relevant Departments and officers of the regional water authorities.
I have told the chairmen of the National Water Council and the regional water authorities that, while I propose to let the new system run for two years or so, I then propose to review its progress with an entirely open mind.
This debate is basically a motion of censure on the Opposition for their appalling performance when in Government, for introducing costly and extravagant reorganisation of local government and the water industry, for failing during their four years of office to undertake the fundamental review of the rating system for which they now ask, for grossly deceiving the country last January about massive increases in rates which were in prospect, and generally for their calamitous record over the entire sphere of local government affairs. The guilty men are on the Opposition Front Bench, and when the election comes the voters will show that they know it.

5.35 p.m.

Sir John Eden: The Secretary of State was absolutely right when he said that never before has dissatisfaction with the present rating system met with such violent and universal hostility, so violently and universally expressed. I am told that at a recent meeting in my constituency more than 500 people turned up to express their anger and resentment at the substantial increases which they are being called upon to pay.
The anger and resentment was not just against the size of the increase. I am told that there was also expressed a general disquiet about what these people felt was a lack of understanding as to the cause of their anger and the reason why they felt so strongly. People are no longer prepared to accept that rate increases are inevitable. They want action now so that the burden they are being called upon to meet can be reduced.

This applies especially to the most hard-pressed, where the increases are greatest.
This is a case where the hitherto silent majority is now demanding to be heard and will become increasingly militant if it feels that it is being given the brushoff. When we were in Government we undertook various examinations of local government finance. I recognise that the 1971 Green Paper on local government finance came as something of an anticlimax, particularly since people were then looking for early action to ensure that the existing system was to be changed.
I know that some steps were taken to ease the burden in various directions, but the fact is that no fundamental changes followed, and it was for the fundamental change that people had been calling. I recognise that the basic reason for this decision not to have a fundamental change was that we were then engaged in the whole exercise of local government reorganisation.
However great the long-term benefits to the ratepayer of local government reorganisation, their worry now appears to be that reorganisation has brought about, and is bringing about, heavier and more costly administration. Ratepayers are very worried, and this has been recognised by the right hon. Gentleman and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), about the heavy additional costs derived from the water and sewerage charges. They also feel that reorganisation itself, because of the large-scale operations involved, may lead to an increase in unnecessary expenditure.
We have to accept that the rates would have gone up anyway, largely due to the fact that the cost of services has increased. In salaries alone, the cost of these services has risen considerably. Many essential improvements, rightly demanded by local residents, have been carried out. In my own area the Government have certainly made matters much worse by their arbitrary abolition of the variable domestic relief. The result of all this is that many people, especially those with comparatively limited means and those living on their own, are deeply and genuinely worried about their ability to pay.
I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend. Obviously, people should pay


their rates. I hope that I leave the right hon. Gentleman in no doubt at all, however, that the anxiety of individuals is absolutely genuine. They are very worried about their ability to pay this extra burden, greater by far than anything that had ever been contemplated. The increases are far outside anything any of them had ever planned or budgeted for.
It is no answer, as has been suggested, for people to move away to other, smaller homes. They cannot do so. The cost of moving would be too great for many of them, and the physical disturbance and suffering in human terms would be much too high. There is no doubt that this is a major and exceptional crisis for the ratepayer and that the Government should take immediate remedial action, especially to ease the burden where the increase is greatest.
In the longer term I was encouraged by what the right hon. Gentleman said about his inquiry. I hope that he might be able to find the opportunity still further to shorten the time scale of the investigations. A major change in our rating system is urgently needed.
We must get away from the system—which has been shown to be unacceptable and indefensible—in which the cost of locally administered services is met by a tax on the occupation of land and buildings related to their notional rental value on the open market. That system can no longer be supported or defended by any hon. or right hon. Member, and it must be changed. Instead, we must turn to some form of local tax or charge to apply to all those who use and benefit from locally administered services, including earning non-householders. I hope that the review will come to an early conclusion that a change of this kind should happen.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The House is faced with a situation that is causing present hardship to a large number of ratepayers. This is not simply an emergency matter; it is the beginning of a chapter of hardship. All the inquiries that my hon. Friends and I have been able to make of councillor colleagues in various parts of the country from the far north to the south-west show that next year there will be a double dose

of rate increases. The best estimate we have been able to reach is a further average increase of between 27 per cent. and 28 per cent. We must address ourselves to a continuing and worsening situation.
The worsening situation is the result of the House having dodged for many years the essential problems of local government finance, failure to give the Redcliffe-Maud Commission a mandate to examine and report on local government finance, the even more astonishing failure of the Local Government Act 1972 to contain financial provisions and, perhaps most reprehensible of all, the failure in Departments, in Cabinet and in the House to give proper consideration to the structure and size of the rate support grant.
I do not hold the present Minister to be responsible for the major faults in what was proudly proclaimed to be the restructured rate support system debated briefly in the House at the beginning of the year before the election. The forecasts which have since been so dismally confounded show how inadequately considered that structure was. Unfortunately, it was inadequately debated in the House on the eve of the election.
The Chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, a new organisation which has been set up since the reorganisation of local government, stated in The Times on 19th June:
The inequity of the rate support grant formula had become an intolerable injustice long before this year's events.
I am disappointed at the limited content of the review which the Minister has promised to make of the rate support grant for next year. I welcome the review of the two elements which he has singled out, but I hope that we may have in the winding-up speech some comments on the extent to which the Government are prepared to enlarge the rate support grant as a percentage of total local authority expenditure, pending the results of the investigation into local authority finance which has just been announced.
In the view of the Liberal Party, next year at least there is every reason for central Government to come to the rescue of local authority expenditure with substantially increased support. We believe that the formula for the rate support grant should pay far more attention to the problems which climate inflicts upon


many local authorities. There is practically no acknowledgment in the rate support grant that heating costs in less favoured parts of the country are, with the new fuel costs, double those in more favoured parts of the country.
The effect of local government reorganisation was inadequately reflected in the rate support grant structure which the previous Government introduced, and many authorities which are not blessed with a natural centre for their new area are still struggling with enormous costs caused by scarcity of accommodation and other difficulties. Then there is the problem of dereliction which, in spite of clean-up campaigns and other special efforts, still haunts many local authorities. Again, that is not reflected seriously in the calculation of the rate support grant. There are also what are described in the rate support grant documents as "education units". It is primitive that the cost of educating a child with a fully supportive home, with all the advantages of living in a first-class residential area, should be equal for rate support grant calculations to the cost of educating a child who has great emotional difficulties or great language learning difficulties which create problems for the teacher and the school administration. Unless the child is positively subnormal, the present formula takes no account of the great variations in the cost of educating a child.
When this matter was before the House on the eve of the rate demands being issued, the excuse was offered by the outgoing Government that many of the discrepancies would be cushioned by the domestic element. The incoming Government have been sharply rebuked, rightly, for the way in which they altered the distribution of the domestic element, but the whole idea that inequities in the rate support grant could be substantially cushioned by the domestic element, no matter how it was distributed, was misconceived.
I cite the example of the local authority of Trafford in the Greater Manchester metropolitan county which, in spite of losing, by comparison with the same area under the old local government system, £8 million of rate support grant, was to receive 14½p in domestic element relief. In other words, it was to receive only 1½p

more than the flat rate which the incoming Government imposed. There was never a chance that the domestic element could correct the gross anomalies of the rate support grant formula. With some reluctance, my hon. Friends and I are forced to the view—

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Trafford district of Manchester, which comprises my constituency. Perhaps he is not aware that on 13th February I received a letter from the Private Office of the then Secretary of State in these terms:
You may find it helpful to know that our provisional estimate of the domestic relief for Trafford is of the order of 16p on our estimates".
That is to say, the best available estimates within the Department. The letter went on to say:
This should lead to an increase of the domestic rate burden of about 9 per cent.
That was the firm intention of the previous Government, and I took that as a commitment which would be upheld.

Mr. Wainwright: I have been informed of these matters by Trafford, otherwise I would not have ventured into that territory. The day following the dispatch of the letter to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), the Trafford authority was told by the Department that the domestic rate relief in that area was to be 14½p, which was the figure I quoted.
The whole idea that domestic rate relief was to cushion anomalies was misconceived from the start—in no case more so than in the Trafford District Council. My right hon. Friends and I are convinced, with some reluctance, that until the review body announced by the Minister today produces its findings the only alternative is for the Government to come in with massive new support for all those local authority functions the standards for which are nationally determined.
We respect the case for the independence of local government, but it is inescapable in present circumstances that the national Exchequer has the responsibility for controlling demand and other aspects of the national economy. It is equally evident that the overwhelming proportion of citizens want a reasonably uniform degree of standards enforced throughout the country.
With those two factors in mind, the obligation surely is on central Government, at any rate for the next few years, to shoulder a very much greater part of the burden of maintaining these services, even though they should continue to be locally managed with as much freedom as possible.
Turning to the longer term, I must express some disappointment at the form of the review body which we understand the Minister to have in mind. In our view, two courses were open to him. After all the years of national discussion about local government finance, the Government could have taken responsibility for bringing forward their own proposals to this House. Personally I believe that that is the course which should have been adopted. The subject has been discussed and debated by all manner of authorities, academic, practical and political. The time has come for the Government to face this House with their proposals. Failing that, there should, in our view, have been a Royal Commission mainly on the ground of the very much greater authority which the findings of a Royal Commission would command. The history of local government finance is littered with the results of inquiries of all sorts over the years—all of which, without exception, have been swept aside on the ground that they did not command sufficient authority or that their findings were not attractive and convenient to government.
The Secretary of State said that he had an open mind. Therefore, I hope that he will reconsider this matter and decide that on balance a Royal Commission would be more satisfactory. If a Royal Commission is appointed, we in the Liberal Party hope that its investigations will not be confined to this country but that the shining example set in some parts of the developed world in raising municipal finance will be carefully investigated. The rest of the world has a good deal to teach us on this subject.
I thought Labour Members would have been sympathetic to the need for a Royal Commission. When the Local Government Bill was before the House on 12th November 1973 the then Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is now a Minister in the present Government, proposed in eloquent terms

the setting up of a Royal Commission on local government finance.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)rose—

Mr. Wainwright: This must be the last time I give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that there will be as few interventions as possible because they cut into the time of other hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall refrain from making my intervention.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wainwright: I am about to conclude my remarks.
We were disappointed to hear the Secretary of State refer in his speech to consultations solely with the local authority associations. Those cannot be ruled out, and it is admirable that local authorities of various grades combine in associations. We wish that they had been persuaded to form one association to speak with a united voice, but they have decided to have a variety of associations for different types of local authority. A great deal of damage has been done in the past because of the lazy course of relying on consultations with a handful of local authority associations rather than on painstaking consultations with the local authorities themselves. One of the main advantages of local authority reorganisation is that the Government now face a far smaller number of local authorities than we have ever had before. It should not now be beyond the Government's power to consult specific local authorities about their own problems rather than relying as exclusively as Governments have done in the past on local authority associations. I believe that the Minister is sympathetic to this point of view, but I hope that it will be confirmed in the Government reply to the debate.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes) rose—

Mr. Wainwright: I must point out to the Government that this is not a vote of censure. If tonight we were voting on a matter of censure, our inclination


would be to pass censure on the outgoing Government now in Opposition. In fact, as the House well knows, the motion consists of a series of requests on behalf of extremely hard-pressed citizens. Those requests can be put only to the Government of the day who have the power to deal with them. In view of the unsatisfactory response to those requests given by the Secretary of State this afternoon, we intend to divide against the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker I must appeal to hon. Members to respond to Mr. Speaker's suggestion for short speeches.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Nearly alt of us have a constituency interest as well as a general interest in this subject. Therefore, I shall obey Mr. Speaker's request to be very brief indeed, because I realise that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. It is a subject on which I should like to see a non-party-political approach. But that is absolutely impossibel by virtue of the highly partisan way in which the Conservative Party has approached the subject of rating.
The Conservatives have conducted a superficially brilliant propaganda exercise. I have been appalled at the allegation made against this "wicked" Government. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has left the debate, because I want to make some comments about her speech. The Government have been accused of abandoning the justice of their rating policy; they have been accused of abandoning equity. When that allegation was made, I thought it meant that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was abandoning his trade union, but I know that he belongs not to Equity but to the General and Municipal Workers' Union, to which I too belong.
My right hon. Friend was also accused of callous indifference to the ratepayer. Therefore, in the light of all these allegations, I dashed out to check the facts. It is always advisable to check the facts before one makes allegations. It is a pity that the Conservatives did not do so. The fact is that the rate support

grant brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is exactly the same as the rate support grant introduced by the Conservative Government. Why all this propaganda? Why this sense of outrage?
Let us come to the question of the distribution of the grant, but let us not create the illusion that the amount was reduced by this Government. The money involved was exactly the same. What proportion was redistributed? A miserable 7 per cent. of the total rate support grant was redistributed, yet the illusion was created that the whole system was being turned upside-down by the Government. I believe that the Opposition's propaganda campaign is now failing because the country recognises that the Government have been saddled with the previous administration's legacy.
I regret that rating has become such a highly partisan matter. It is now impossible to discuss rating because of the highly emotive campaign that is being conducted throughout the country. Redistribution of the domestic element has adversely affected Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire. I was one of the first to complain. In Stoke-on-Trent the 13p flat rate was a poor substitute for what it was receiving. Stoke-on-Trent was receiving 19p and North Staffordshire as a whole was receiving between 17p and 19p. I complained to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). He listened to the representations from Stoke-on-Trent with courtesy and promised to do what he could on the specific issue and on the general issue.
Not only redistribution but inflation has affected Stoke-on-Trent, North Staffordshire and the rest of the country. Inflation is an appalling problem and it is ridiculous to blame this administration for inflation after it has been in office for only a couple of months. The previous administration advised local authorities to budget for 9 per cent. inflation. Some local authorities, including those in North Staffordshire, took that advice and budgeted for 9 per cent. They now find themselves totally discomfited. They accepted the previous administration's calculations, which were misleading, and they were sold short by the Conservative rate support grant. They now find themselves blamed for their rating policy.
The third problem, which has not been adequately dealt with in the House, is the terrible problem of threshold agreements. North Staffordshire is gravely affected by such agreements. I have received a telegram from Mr. Jim Westwood, the chairman of the Stoke-on-Trent council. The telegram reads:
Assurance of increase in rate support grant for 1974–75 urgent. Staffs County Council now overspent by £4 million. Threshold agreement to date will cost £2,400,000. Inflation 9 per cent. in January now 16 per cent. will cost £1,300,00. Further increases in costs will accrue. Before Staffs County Council decide whether to issue a supplement precept which it wishes to avoid must know decision on grant by end of July. All local authorities in difficulty.
My right hon. and hon. Friends must take account of the fact that threshold agreements are hitting local authorities very hard. It is a grave situation, and we must have Government action both in the short term and in the long term.
If my right hon. and hon. Friends say that they cannot take short-term action, I would refer them to the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction when in Opposition, on 12th February 1973. He said:
What can be done? The rate support grant is not just a support grant which must be treated once every year. It does not mean that, once it has been discussed and passed, no further action is open to the Government. Powers are available to the Government under Sections 1 and 2 of the Local Government Act 1966. Under Section 3, if the Government find that
'an unforeseen increase has taken place in the level of prices, costs and remunerations'
the Minister may by order approved by the resolution of this House increase the amount of the grant and its elements—the needs element, the resources clement and the domestic element.
Therefore, it does not require any special legislation or any great intellectual exercise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 1041.]
My hon. Friend was right. I believe that this administration should now take urgent action to compensate those local authorities which are being penalised by the redistribution of the domestic element. I speak for my own authority but I know that I speak for many others when I say that we need urgent Government action. We also need urgent action to help combat the effects of inflation and threshold agreements. I hope that my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will discuss the situation urgently with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he will act accordingly.
The present rating system is outmoded and outrageous in that it is regressive and unfair. For example, it is preposterous that four people living in one household who are all wage earners and four people living in a neighbouring household only one of whom is a wage earner should pay the same rates. That is a well-known example, but it is wrong that the system should be allowed to continue. The present system disregards the basic Socialist principle that the broadest backs should bear the heaviest burdens. I believe that we must raise revenue in accordance with the ability to pay. We should have income-related rates.
Why have successive Governments played pat-a-ball with the rates? I believe that they have done so because they have been afraid of losing their influence. At the same time, local authorities have been afraid of losing their autonomy. We have the spectacle of central Government and local government facing and glaring at each other like Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier at the weigh-in. They are not fighting but they are eyeing each other warily because each is jealous of the other's influence and autonomy. I believe that reform is urgent.
I should like to see education taken out of local authority finance. I should like to see a local income tax based on the ability to pay. That would not need bureaucracy but it would include the 9 million non-ratepayers who are now receiving the benefits of the rating system but are not paying. They would be added to the 16 million ratepayers. I believe that the step announced by my right hon. Friend of initiating an inquiry is of value, and I warmly welcome it. It is the first major step forward in reassessing the rating system that we have seen for a long time.
But I make this criticism. By asking it to report in 1975, I do not think that the Secretary of State is showing the sense of urgency required. I believe that it should be asked to report within six months. All the facts are known. They are known ad infinitum and ad nauseam. Every fact about the rating


system has been exposed. Therefore, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should ask the members of his inquiry team to report within six months.
Our local authorities do a very valuable job but we must give them proper finance with which to do the job.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am very glad to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and to add what weight I can to his plea to the Government for some urgent help to the hard-pressed areas during the current year.
In common with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have had more letters on the subject of rates than on any other since becoming a Member of this House in 1964. I have received letters from individuals, from local authorities, and from parish councils. I have received petitions from groups of people living in my constituency. They all make the same point. They are from people who are concerned, worried and alarmed that, at a time when they are asked to restrain their own incomes to increases of between 7 and 9 per cent., they face increases in one year, in the majority of cases, well in excess of 70 per cent. in their rates, and in many cases of 80, 90 or 100 per cent.
To an extent, we can forget the past when we consider the position that these people face. Increases of that kind to be imposed in one year are both intolerable and unacceptable. What is more, they are causing considerable personal hardship to many people in many constituencies. I believe that I speak for all the other Cheshire Members of Parliament, since Cheshire is one of the counties worst hit by the increases, when I say that we have all received this type of letter from our constituents.
In answer to a Parliamentary Question which I put to the Minister recently, I was told by the right hon. Gentleman—and he repeated it today—that the average increase throughout the country for the domestic ratepayer was 30 per cent. I was told by the Under-Secretary of State, who is a neighbour of mine and who knows the position, that the increase for domestic ratepayers in Cheshire was between 41 and 65 per cent. If that was

true, it would be bad enough, but it is not true. The average increases to be borne by my constituents are well in excess of the figures which his answer gives. I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can give an answer to me in May of this year saying that domestic rate increases in Cheshire vary between 41 and 65 per cent. when as long ago as 11th April of last year I received a letter from the clerk of the county council showing that in more than 50 per cent. of my constituency the increase in domestic rates was well in excess of 70 per cent. The Under-Secretary knows the area. I can assure him that all those parts of my constituency which go into the Warrington district and the Vale Royal district have increases in excess of 70 per cent.
Facing that prospect, Cheshire Members of Parliament decided to see the clerk to the county council. Having done so, I believe that, despite the increase in the rate, the county council has done what it can to curb its expenditure. However, when more than 50 per cent. of a county rate today is caused purely by education, it is very difficult to make meaningful cuts in the rate.
Although inflation is one cause, we must realise that a major cause of the increase in the county rate is the changes which have been made in the rate support grant. It was in view of that that I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him whether Cheshire Members of Parliament could see him as a deputation and put to him the hardship that our constituents faced as a result of increases of this nature. I was appalled to receive a letter from the Secretary of State refusing even to see us. Until I received that letter, I had not believed that any Minister would refuse to see a deputation of Members of Parliament about a matter which so clearly affected their constituents.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The same happened to me.

Mr. Carlisle: The Secretary of State said today that he would still listen to pleas about what should be done. That makes it even more extraordinary that he should have been unwilling to see us so that we might make these pleas to him. It throws into question how sincere he is in saying that he is willing to listen to us.
In the course of this debate, I hope that we shall hear from the Government what is the precedent for a Minister of the Crown to refuse to see a deputation of Members of Parliament on a matter concerning their constituents, especially when the deputation of which I speak was to be led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), an ex-Cabinet Minister, as I made clear in my letter.
I had the honour to be a member of the previous administration for three and a half years in the Home Office. I can say with complete honesty that during that time I never once refused to see any Member who wrote asking to see me. What is more, I do not believe that the Home Secretary of the day ever refused to see any deputation of Members asking to see him. I should like to know whether the principle has been changed. I have always understood that hon. Members had freedom of access to Ministers on matters concerning their constituents.
I do not want to over-weigh the point, but it is not enough to say that the Secretary of State has seen a lot of other deputations. I have been to an all-party meeting of ratepayers in my constituency. I have listened to the pressure coming from that hall asking Members of Parliament to support them in their refusal to pay their rates. I have made it clear that I could never give my support to any such suggestion, and I have asked them to rely on the democratic processes of this House and to let us as their representatives put their case to the Minister.
It is difficult to know how to carry out that fundamental task as a Member of Parliament if a request to see a Minister on a matter of this gravity concerning so many constituents is met by a blank refusal. In my view, it is arrogant and scandalous that the Secretary of State should adopt this attitude.
I realise that inflation is one of the causes of the increase in the rates, and I realise that the proposals of the previous Government in changing the rate support grant were in themselves equally adverse to Cheshire. But when it was realised what effect the increase would mean in one year for domestic ratepayers in the area the previous administration proposed to alleviate it with a differential domestic rate relief. The abolition of that by the present Government has resulted, in my constituency, in a reduction of the relief to

domestic ratepayers from 19p to 13p in the pound. That decision alone is costing every domestic ratepayer in my constituency about 5p in the pound more.
I believe that the reasons for it were purely political. They were aimed at reducing the rates in municipal areas at the expense of rates in other areas. The Secretary of State believed that the Labour Party would gain more success and support from the municipal areas at the expense of areas from which his party does not traditionally get its support. It shows no interest in the effect on local ratepayers. Removing the differential shows that he has ignored the relationship that should exist between rates and the services provided. In many rural areas people receive fewer services for their rates than are received by people living in the urban areas. There was perfect justification for alleviating the burden on domestic ratepayers for that reason.
I echo what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke on Trent, South said. In the short term there must be some supplementary relief given to those areas in the country where the increases are in excess of 70 per cent. At the least I would ask the Government—the right hon. Gentleman said he would listen—to make an order so that the percentage increase can be phased over a period of years even if in the end that percentage rate is reached. It is intolerable to expect those people to undertake, accept and absorb that degree of increase in 12 months.
Regarding the long term, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement concerning the review. It will be very difficult to find any attractive alternative to the rating system. All the other alternatives are unattractive. A greater proportion of education expense should be removed from the rates. Something should be done about wage earners who do not now pay rates. That may be in the long term.
Something must be done now. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying he will listen; he must act. It is essential that he does so. He has shown, in his refusal to meet many of us, an unwillingness to recognise the serious human problems being created for people facing increases of that kind.
If we do not hear from the right hon. Gentleman at the end of this debate a promise of definite action I hope we shall defeat the Government on this matter.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Act 1974
2. Dumping at Sea Act 1974
3. Ministers of the Crown Act 1974
4. Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1974

RATES

Question again proposed, that the amendment be made.

6.23 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Like the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), I have received a large number of letters from constituents. Most of them on this topic have gone right to the root of the matter in criticising the rating system. I am particularly pleased at what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said this afternoon.
I was elected to a local authority nearly 35 years ago. At that time I thought the rating system was ridiculous. Nothing has passed since then to revise my opinion. In many ways it is far worse.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn spoke for a constituency and a particular county. I speak as a Northamptonshire Member. Northamptonshire has a formidable problem. Over the last five years we have had the fastest growth of any county in Britain. My friends from West Sussex, Bedfordshire and Berkshire complain that their counties have experienced a rapid growth rate too. But not one of them has had an increase of even as much as 10 per cent. in population over the last five years, whereas in Northamptonshire that growth rate has been 12 per cent.
If we look at the increase in the number of children it is obvious why the county's expenses are soaring. The number of children increases by 5 per cent. each year. That may not sound much, but the national average is only 1½ per cent. We have experienced a 5 per

cent. increase in the birth rate as opposed to 1½ per cent. nationally.
It is not as if we have brought this on ourselves. The people in Northamptonshire are not exceptionally fertile. The increase is due to the people who come from London and Birmingham. The increase in the population is directly due to people coming from those places because both Labour and Conservative Governments' policies over the years have been that we should receive tens of thousands of people from those cities.
Since both Governments have done us down, the five Northamptonshire Members of Parliament—two from the Government side and three from the Opposition—have preserved a united front. I see that one of my constituents, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), is present.
On 21st May we visited No. 10 Downing Street bearing a letter signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun), by me and the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Jones). Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), by the leader of the county council, by the leader of the opposition on the county council and by the chief executive officer. This was a united all-party protest. The last paragraph of our letter read:
We urge Her Majesty's Government to recognise the unique position of Northamptonshire as the fastest growing county in this country and to provide additional financial relief.
On the same day during an Adjournment debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Environment who is on the Government Front Bench, in replying to a speech by the hon. Member for Daventry, made several points. I shall refer to two of them. He accepted that Northamptonshire is the fastest growing county in Britain. Indeed, he agreed that in Western Europe it has the fastest growing population of any local authority. Secondly, he agreed that we should look at the rating problems from an all-party point of view because it is a problem which has been caused by both parties.
On 12th June the Prime Minister wrote to me. The first paragraph of his letter reads:
On 21 May you led a deputation from Northamptonshire to 10 Downing Street to


hand in a petition and a letter setting out the case for additional financial support to the county to meet the problems associated with its rapid growth of population.
The last sentence reads:
your constituents"—
that is, all the Northamptonshire constituents—

"may be assured that the Government knows about"—
the wording is important—
the particular problems the county and the districts have to face in coping with the rapid growth of population.
The people of Northamptonshire have suffered from both Governments. They expect particular consideration in this particular problem. They are entitled to it.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: It is very rare that one can rise to speak after hearing one's Member of Parliament put one's own case. As a ratepayer living in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), I find that unusual. I endorse what he said, because we in Northamptonshire constitute an extra special case.
Unlike the people in many counties, we have discovered that our rates have risen not only because of inflation, not simply because of the cut in domestic rate relief, but because of the enormous expansion programme that has been imposed on us. My constituency has experienced rate increases of not less than 50 per cent. and of up to 100 per cent.
It would be wrong to use this debate to make party political capital. The country and the ratepayers in my constituency do not want me to make a series of party political points.
When the Under-Secretary graciously received the three Opposition Members from Northamptonshire, together with the protest representatives, he said that he would take up the question of the four expanding towns and the extra help we would require. I am disappointed that he has not felt himself able to persuade the Secretary of State that extra help should be offered this year. I hope that the representations made this afternoon will mean that he thinks again on this point as to why our ratepayers are more aggrieved than those in other parts of the country. It is because the county

treasurer has already announced that next year we are likely to face a further increase of 60 per cent. in our rate burden, without allowing for inflation.
It would not be so bad if the people at present living in the county were to benefit. Someone living in one of the rural areas of my constituency, who will probably have a bucket lavatory and will be waiting for a bypass to be built goodness knows when, is paying to house the people from outside the area and supply the new schools, roads and other local government services. That is why there is the gravest discontent. What good is it to a shopkeeper in Rushden High Street to be told that Northampton will be developed and that more trade will go there to the benefit of the whole county?
Therefore, the existing population are emphatically saying to the Government that unless there is more Government aid the expansion should stop. In the short term, if there is no help, I believe that there will be a cry from all the political parties and from the district and county councils to cut back existing expansion programmes. This can be done because the premise of the South-East Study is now false. London's declining population means that more people could be absorbed in the empty dockland areas, people who will be needed anyway if London Transport is not to collapse through lack of staff.
If I am told that one reason why this cannot be done is that the reduction in population is not matched by a fall in the number of households, it is about time the Government considered why the latter is not falling. My personal observation—I make no moral judgment here—leads me to conclude that the permissive society has aggravated our problems. A growing number of broken families means that husbands and wives need separate homes. Although I do not object to early marriages, young people who marry and have children at an earlier and earlier age show some irresponsibility which they turn to local government to put right.
Although I have said that we can take short-term action by cutting expansion, I should not restrict myself entirely to parochial affairs. There are three myths associated with the rates and local government. The first, which one almost always hears at rates protest meetings or when a district official or councillor makes a


speech, is that we cannot cut services. Why not? For years the education and health services have been administered centrally. Would anyone put his hand on his heart and say that services in those two areas have not been reduced recently, in some cases drastically? The electorate has a perfect right to demand cuts in services rather than enormous rate increases. No council, no official, has any right to say that services are sacrosanct no matter what they cost. That is the way to ruination and it is one reason why the country is in its present dire economic state.
The second myth is that the sates are the easiest way of collecting local government finance. That is now an illusion. The strength of feeling nationally is such that the unfairness that now exists by far exceeds any merits which that argument might once have had. The public demand action. It is no good taking refuge in claims that the previous Government did nothing. The Labour Party are now the Government and it is their job to do something.
The third myth is that if too much money is paid from the centre, there will be little local independence. The real danger is the reverse. If 80 or 90 per cent. of the money spent by local government were allocated from the centre and local councils were told to settle their own priorities according to local needs within that budget, the problem would be not how to give them independence but what to do when they overspent or spent too quickly and came back for more, if they were denied the opportunity to raise money themselves.
We must therefore dispose of those myths before we investigate this knotty question. I have some suggestions for meeting the problem. It is not profitable to talk about removing this or that charge from one ratepayer. Rates are taxes, and sooner or later they have to be paid. If we were to say that someone without mains drainage should not pay for sewerage, what would we say to the childless couple about the education part of their rates? In the long run we should end up in a blind alley if we were not careful.
My main suggestion is that the bulk of local government finance should be provided from the centre. There is no one

simple answer, but perhaps a mixture of direct and indirect taxation would be best. It would be wrong to transfer most of the burden simply to direct taxation. Then many small firms that are being crippled by the rates burden would pay the same amount in another way. We have to seek alternatives which would not cripple the small business.
I should like to commend the way in which continental countries finance their road building programmes. A system of road bonds guaranteed by the Government means that money is raised on the open market and the expense is taken off local authorities or the State. If it is argued that that is merely taking up resources that would otherwise be employed, I would answer that much of that money has gone into property or income bonds which do nothing to further the country's economic well-being. I commend my idea to the Government.
Local authorities must have some means of raising money themselves. That is why I welcomed the Local Revenue Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Lotteries alone, however, are not the answer. After much thought on the subject I would defend a proportion—perhaps as low as 10 per cent.—of local finance being raised still by the existing system. I do so for two reasons. First, if local authorities can raise only 10 per cent. of their own income any large increase that they themselves have caused will be immediately obvious. A council which is profligate will soon be seen to be exceeding what others think it should spend. At the moment, if it is profligate that fact is lost in the mass of the rates. If there were still a small local element the electors could see whether councillors were doing a good job financially.
Second, in an age when the planners so largely decide our fate—decide to put a motorway within 400 yards of our house, for example, or to allow a factory to be built at the bottom of our garden—the only way that the ordinary citizen can gain redress is to have his rates reduced by appealing against the valuation. If we do away with the rates altogether, how will we recompense somebody whose property has genuinely lost value due to circumstances beyond his control? That is why, despite the major fundamental reform which must take


place, some local money-raising must continue. Perhaps it should be based on the rates system.
I shall vote for the motion and against the amendment because I believe that the Government have failed. They have failed to introduce any similar measure to that of the former Chancellor which gave help to areas with extra large increases. We accept that help for any increase over 10 per cent. is perhaps too much to ask, but why not help those paying more than the national average of 30 per cent.? Why have not the Government acceded to that simple request? I shall go into the Lobby because the Government have neglected the areas with particular problems, because they have done nothing.
If the present Government and any future Government do not radically reform the rates, they will discover to their horror that they have done great harm to the cause of democracy in Britain.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond: Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I welcome the remarkable conversion of the Opposition as illustrated in the motion, in which they stress the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system. Those of us who served on the Committee stage of the Bill which dealt with local government reform will remember how often the point was made to the then Government Minister that reform of local government finance was much more necessary and urgent than reorganisation of local government. Unfortunately that plea fell on deaf ears.
Why, therefore, has there been this conversion so soon after the Tory Party lost office? It is obvious from speeches in the debate that pressure put upon Opposition Members by their constituents has forced them to abandon the stubborn stance they have taken over the years and to realise at long last that radical reform is necessary.
Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken, I cannot say that I have had a lot of letters from my constituents about this matter, because my constituency was one of those which benefited from the change made by the Labour Government. I make no bones about that. But I also make the point that I am convinced of the need for a radical change, without

having to have the pressure of my constituents applied upon me. I have believed in this need for many years. During the whole of the time that I served on a local authority, including my years as chairman of its finance committee, I considered that the present system was unfair and must be changed. There has been resistance to this proposal for a long time.
We have heard today one of the defences of the present system—almost the only defence—that it is simple to operate and that it is easy to collect the rates. But the mounting cost of local government has forced us all to try to ensure that a radical change must be made. We need not take a blind jump into a new system which is completely untried. This matter has attracted the attention of many local authority bodies, including the International Union of Local Authorities, for many years, and on a number of occasions reports have been prepared comparing different rating methods used throughout the world.
I attended a conference in Vienna in 1969. I admit that that now seems to be a little out of date, but at that conference we were presented with an extensive report of the rating methods used in no fewer than 33 countries. Those methods varied widely, as one would expect. The method used in this country was not very popular. Only three other countries used our system in the main—South Africa, Canada and to a great extent the United States.
The difficulty of our system is that because it is based on the taxation of owners or occupiers of property it is not at all buoyant. It does not expand with a buoyant economy. That is the difficulty from which all the complaints about it stem.
At the conference to which I have referred, the system which was most popular, and which was demonstrated to be the most efficient was that operated in Sweden and Finland. That was a local income tax system which gave the local authority the greatest flexibility, allowing it to select the tax, within certain limits, which it wished to apply. There were limits to the amount which could be applied to any individual's income tax, and those limits were recognised as necessary by all the local authority representatives who took part in the conference. It


was recognised that while local authorities would wish to be able to fix their own rate of tax and the amount to be collected, they must operate within a total national taxation policy of the central government and that restrictions must therefore be imposed. There are rating methods much superior to that used in this country.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today indicated that he is to instigate an inquiry and that he will try to do this as quickly as possible. He said that he would not have a Royal Commission because of the time it would take before it reported. I suggest that members of the inquiry should be given details of rating methods used throughout the world to enable them to make comparisons and to look at systems which are not untried but which have been used for many years. The members of the inquiry would be able to compare the efficiency or otherwise of other systems as against our own.
We should recognise that local government plays an important part in the affairs of our constituents and that it should be given the utmost freedom to carry out the voters' wish. In giving local government freedom, we must relinquish some of the control we have over it.
I am sure that everyone interested in focal government will give a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's announcement of an inquiry. That decision is many years late—perhaps both sides of the House should take blame for that—but it is nevertheless a welcome move.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I am deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State has not today promised us a measure of interim relief immediately for those adversely affected by the actions taken by the Government this year. My disappointment arises because my constituency is one of the worst affected, and the way that Solihull has been treated by the Secretary of State lends a great deal of substance to the charge which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to when he said that the Government were being accused of injustice and callous indifference.
In Solihull rates have gone up by 92 per cent., 36 per cent. of which was due to the direct arbitrary action of the Gov

ernment in withdrawing £1,500,000 from Solihull's rate support grant. The arbitrary nature of the decision can be seen in a West Midlands context when we compare what happened to Solihull, a metropolitan district in the West Midlands metropolitan county, with what has happened in other metropolitan districts in the area. Only two, Birmingham and Walsall, have benefited from redistribution of the rate support grant. They have benefited to the extent of £4,376,000. The other five areas within the metropolitan county have lost £3,450,000, of which Solihull has lost £1,500,000.
It is absolutely crazy that parts of Birmingham—such as Sutton Coldfield, which is in a similar situation to Solihull and has a similar kind of residential district and similar problems of development—should have benefited by the Government's arbitrary measures while Solihull should have been disadvantaged in the way it has.
I said that Sutton Coldfield has similar problems to Solihull, but that was an exaggeration and indeed perhaps a misstatement in favour of Sutton Coldfield and other parts of Birmingham, because Solihull is a rapidly developing area with considerable problems of its own in trying to deal with a growing population. In this context, if I may take the words from the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), I believe that the people of Solihull are themselves responsible for the growth of their population. The school figures for 1972–73 were 39,145, for this year they are 41,494 and for next year it is expected that there will be another 5,600 pupils.
In addition, the newly created enlarged district of Solihull has an enormous financial burden resulting from a large overspill population at Chelmsley Wood of people from Birmingham desperately needing schools, social services, libraries and all the other things with which local government should and ought to provide them.
I speak passionately in the cause of Solihull, but everyone here has problems of a like kind. In the circumstances, it is extraordinary that there should have been no recognition by the Government of the damage they have done by the redistribution of the rate support grant


this year and by their refusal to give a measure of interim relief from it. There was a time when it was possible to obtain transitional grants in matters of this kind. No transitional grant is offered this year. Why not? It surely is not beyond the bounds or means of the Department to tide over local authorities in this position with transitional grants.
I echo the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) in saying that the Secretary of State has been singularly reluctant to receive a deputation from Solihull to put to him its problems and the way in which it has suffered. Not surprisingly, the people of my constituency are angry and bitter at the way they have been treated. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have heard threats to withhold rates, and I have stood out against such threats. But the Government have only themselves to thank for such threats when they supported the illegal activities of the councillors at Clay Cross and the Leader of the House himself came out in their support.
These matters have been raised not by me but my constituents with me in threatening action of this kind. I hope very much that the inquiry which we are promised into the rating system will be speedy and urgent. I hope that we shall have interim relief before long.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: The interesting thing about the debate so far is that while Tory Members have talked about their constituency problems not one has mentioned the rates actually paid in their constituencies. Part of my constituency had a rise of only 1p in the rates this year, and the rates are now 58·8p in the pound. The greater part of the constituency paid 35p last year and this year it will pay 52·3p, a considerable increase of 17·3p.
I served on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Local Government Act 1973 and I have attended all the rate support grant debates since I first came to the House. I can only describe the Conservative position as one of ineptitude and delay in government and hypocrisy in opposition. It is one of ineptitude and delay because the Act under which the new grants were to be made was pro

duced a year later than it should have been. The Green Paper was produced in 1971. In the Gracious Speech of November 1972 we were promised a Bill. It did not appear until November 1973, and then we were told that it would have to be rushed through, because if we did not get on with it the local authorities would not know what their grants would be, and so on.
The Conservative Government mixed up all kinds of things in that measure, including an ombudsman for local government. It was described by the Minister responsible as five Bills in one. We co-operated in getting it through the House even though we put down important amendments designed to provide an alternative to the system and to assist the ratepayers. Before the Bill became an Act the Conservative Government informed the local authorities of the proposed rate support grant.
At the end of December 1973 the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) brought in new cuts and there had to be a new rate support grant. On 22nd January 1974 the Conservative Government announced a new figure, and the present Government have kept to it. The total of the grant which the councils receive themselves as opposed to individual ratepayers on the individual domestic rate is exactly what the Conservative Government proposed.
Only one change was made by the new Labour Government. In the determination of the 7 per cent. applying to domestic rate relief, the Government thought it unfair to subsidise some domestic ratepayers—some of them well off, some even with two homes—as much as six or seven times as the city dweller. Rightly, therefore, the Government gave the citizens of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere a 13p domestic rate relief. That was social justice. But, of course, it meant some increases elsewhere. Yet not one Tory Member has said exactly how much. All Opposition Members who have spoken have merely quoted percentages.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman says that none of us has stated how much. In my constituency we are having to pay 15½p in the pound more, entirely as a result of the change made by the Government and for no other reason.

Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman had not yet spoken when I made that point, and he still has not given the figures for the rates paid last year and those which will be paid this year. I have accused the Opposition of hypocrisy. It emerges very early in the motion in the call for a fundamental reform of the system, for interim relief this year and for water and sewerage to rank for rate rebate. The Opposition could have done every one of those things before 28th February. But they did not. Instead, Conservative Members went into the Lobbies time and time again in support of their Government probably not even knowing what they were voting about. They opposed our amendments to the Local Government Bill and to the Water Bill.
On 25th March last the rate support grant was put up for approval or rejection by the House. The present Leader of the Opposition voted against it. So did the Liberals—perhaps all of them. But 70 Conservative Members were missing. Where were they? Why did they not oppose the grant, as their leader did? This is hypocrisy. It is "phoney" war.
There was dishonesty too during the General Election. On 20th February the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), then Secretary of State for the Environment, issued a Press release. In it he said that there would be no rise in rates of over 9 per cent. That statement was completely untrue. It was not even what he had earlier said in the House.
I want now to deal with the problems of Greater Manchester. Most of my constituency is in the new metropolitan borough of Tameside, which has particular problems because it is a new borough with no former county borough basis; it is like Trafford and Knowsley in the Merseyside area. In the part of the borough in which I live, the rates have gone up from 35p to 52·3p. The prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate has sent telegrams to the local newspapers from London, where he lives, saying that this is because of the wastefulness and extravagance of the Labour-controlled council.
On the other side of Manchester there is the metropolitan district of Trafford, and there the rate has gone up from 35·7p to 55p, an even bigger increase. Whose fault is it there? According to

the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), it is all the fault of the Labour Government. They cannot both be right. The fact is that they are both wrong. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, though I assure him I have not yet finished with him. Without that level of rate, neither Trafford nor Tame-side council could have done the job which the Conservative Government placed on them. The hon. Member for Stretford spoke in the House on 25th March. Let me deal with his speech and the so-called information he has given to his constituents and the Press. Either he has an immense lack of knowledge about the rating system or he has an intention to mislead the House.
I suggest that the very numerous claims made by the hon. Member of cuts that would be forced on the Trafford council because of the Labour Government's decision were entirely misleading. He read from a statement by the chief executive officer but he did not tell us the date of that statement, which complained that
There would be redundancies of staff; including professional staff; replacement and maintenance provision would have to be reduced to levels which would result in forced deterioration of property … there would be no grants to voluntary bodies. One of the two teaching centres would have to be closed … In the public health service, reductions would involve significant staff vacancies, including five public health inspectors …—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March 1974; Vol. 871. c. 127.]
All those were cuts that were insisted upon by the hon. Gentleman's colleague in the Trafford borough, his right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). These were the cuts he was proposing on 17th December, cuts which the hon. Member for Stretford went into the Division Lobby to support.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman has not stated the facts as they were. As he will see if he reads the relevant part of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the letter from the chief executive of Trafford district from which I quoted at the time of the last rates debate was based on cuts that would have been required had the council sought to remain within the 9 per cent. increase within which the previous Government had indicated in their letter to me it was their firm intention to remain. This is why the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. As


regards his earlier point, he suggests that there was a similarity between the Tameside situation and the Trafford situation. This is not so. In the case of the Conservative-controlled Trafford authority the expenditure from local government reorganisation resulted in a saving of £1½ million.

Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman is saying that those cuts should have been restored. He voted for them. He is saying that it was quite impossible for the Trafford borough to carry out its task with a rates increase of only 9 per cent., given the grants which the Conservative Government had sanctioned and which we maintained. So far as Trafford was concerned the domestic rate relief was different by only 1½p. I asked the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) if there would have been any extra money coming from the Conservative Government had that party won the election. The answer is there would not be any extra money, because the Conservative Government were, perhaps in their view rightly, insisting on cuts in public expenditure and not more expenditure. But I suggest that those cuts were published in a Press release by the Department of the Environment on 4th February 1974.
The hon. Gentleman has said the Conservative Government were determined to ensure that rate increases for householders in Trafford were limited to 9 per cent. compared with last year. But he has not brought any evidence, and neither has the right hon. Lady, that that would have been the case. Whatever my right hon. Friend might have done, it would have been quite impossible for Trafford, Tameside or a vast number of authorities to have restrained the growth in rates to 9 per cent. In any case it would have been in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. for both Trafford and Tameside.
I want to thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the proposal that there should be an immediate review. I believe that for next year he should examine whether water should not only be separated from local government expenditure but should be precepted directly to the Government from the water authorities. I also welcome his statement that local authorities with particular problems resulting from local government reorganisation—Trafford and Tameside

are similar here—will have special recognition. I hope, however, that the Inland Revenue will not altogether be taken out of the reckoning when this is being examined and that someone from the Inland Revenue will serve on the inquiry, because in the end we want to see a change from an unfair system of rates to a fairer system of taxation on income.
The figures are remarkable. If we did away altogether with domestic rating and transferred it to income tax, the increase in the tax rate would be only from 33 to 37½ per cent., so that anyone now paying £10 tax a week would pay only £70 a year more and not a domestic rate. This is the main thing we should examine.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am proud to succeed a man so respected in this House, so loved in his constituency and with such a reputation for public service in this country and overseas. Sir John Tilney was Member of Parliament for Wavertree for 24 years. He had the special distinction of speaking not only in this House but immediately outside it in Parliament Square at the unveiling ceremony of the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, having played a great part in seeing that it was built there. He set a high standard and established a great reputation in Wavertree with his wife, Guinevere. I hope my wife, Carolyn and I will be able to live up to this standard in forthcoming years.
I have delayed intervening in this House for some time, as some hon. Members may have noticed, awaiting an appropriate opportunity to bring to the notice of the House a serious and grave issue, one which has a direct bearing on this debate, which faces my constituency, the city of Liverpool, and the major part of this country. Since John Tilney's day the size of local authority districts has greatly changed. In his day people identified with a small unit which was accessible and comprehensible to them. These small units have now been superseded by giant authorities where fundamental decisions on strategic policy affecting the lives of ordinary people are taken by what seems to them a remote authority no longer representing them.
It is this lack of identity and sense of distance from those who make decisions


that is creating an alienation foreign in this country and endangering the democratic process. Post-Beveridge and more recently post-Seebohm we have seen new and increasing pressures placed on local authorities by this Chamber which in turn have given rise to new levels of expenditure. In 1963 the rate per head, including central Government grant, was £48. By 1972 this figure had risen to £128. The location of power and the ratio between central Government and local government expenditure have also changed in that today more than 65 per cent. of all public expenditure is incurred directly by central Government. This in turn results in over-dominance of central Government on the local authority and of the local authority on the community.
Does this increase in dependence on central Government matter? I believe that it does. It takes away local authority control in determining the destiny of the people whom it was elected to represent. This undermines the democratic process which is at the cornerstone of our local government system and is admired by countries throughout the world.
But perhaps more important—a view which I imagine is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—it takes away the self-reliance, motivation and willingness of the individual to take action for himself and for his neighbours. It also reduces his incentive to take action for the benefit of the community.
If the increased power of central Government had removed injustices at local level there might have been some justification for the Government's financial dominance, but that is not borne out by the facts. More than 4½ million people live in more than 1¼ million homes which are unfit for human habitation. One in six homes lacks one or more of the basic amenities. In Liverpool, 5 per cent. of the population live in overcrowded conditions, according to the 1971 census. It has been estimated that about 30 per cent. of the disabled still do not get help. About 43·6 per cent. of all children leave school without educational attainment, and 2 million adults are estimated to be illiterate. Tens of thousands of old people remain isolated and neglected, and an increasing number die alone. During 1972 at least 7 million supple-

mentary benefit claims were made. The social conditions in which our people are living are a terrible indictment of our times, and the situation is getting worse.
Surely the time has come for a radical reappraisal of how we spend public money at local level and what level of services can be expected to meet the demands of a primarily urban society. It is apparent that public services are not tackling the fundamental human and urban problems, but are designed, albeit unintentionally, to reinforce the dependency syndrome to which I have already referred.
I want to suggest an entirely new style, new process, new social philosophy—not a new political party—to tackle this kind and scale of problem. I can claim firsthand experience of what I am advocating as a youth and community worker and founder of Task Force.
Task Force has recruited about 100,000 young volunteers in London alone to care for neighbours and to befriend the old, the lonely and the handicapped. It has reinforced the importance of involving young people in understanding and caring for the needs of the individual and shows what can be done.
I think that you, Mr. Speaker, know the importance of this work, having been actively involved in helping to found Task Force. The Prime Minister—if he were here—would recollect, as would my own Leader—if he were here—the all-party programme that was launched from 10 Downing Street six years ago—YVFF—the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, formerly of this House, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and you, Mr. Speaker, played a major part in building YVFF into the largest major community work foundation in Britain today sending small teams of community workers into areas of severe urban stress where the ordinary channels of communication have broken down. There they tackle social anomalies through a variety of action projects and have helped to reduce risks to the community. It was my privilege to be involved as director of that foundation since its inception. I retire from that post tomorrow.
It is this spirit of social responsibility, kindled by YVFF, Task Force and many other similar community organisations,


which may provide some guidelines on how to handle the problems of alienation and resentment which are now so prevalent and increasing rapidly.
The changes that I am advocating at the local authority level would see a new style of approach adopted which would engage every person in the decision-making processes and evoke hope within them that they have power over their own destinies. This spirit of hope opens new political possibilities. Instead of public philanthropy, which some of the major Government community programmes of recent years have offered, resources could be used by communities, especially for residents in high stress areas, in a way which would bring dignity instead of despair.
I have been trying to persuade the Liverpool City Council to encourage the tenants of a new council estate known as the Belle Vale Estate—rather inappropriately named—to tackle their own problems: for example, vandalism in car parks, lack of play facilities, refuse bins on fire, no grass and no trees, unmade-up roads, and broken pavements.
I have asked the Liverpool City Council not about administrative reorganisation but about adopting a completely new way of thinking. Instead of waiting for officialdom to take action—now almost too late—the new approach could have had an immediate impact.
It is not only housing estates that produce some of the worst urban problems, but new constructions like the Rocket Flyover in my constituency at the end of the M62. The Department went ahead with that without utilising the knowledge or experience which has been accumulated over past years. It did not properly consult the residents, and this has directly affected the attitude of local people. The residents have still not had a rate reduction, their homes are still not sound-insulated, they do not know when they are to get compensation, telephone kiosks have been removed overnight, trees have been dug up without authority, and the site office, which is there to establish good relations with the community, is just failing in its public relations.
Public participation is still regarded by many as a hindrance and delay rather than as an enrichment of the democratic process. This short-sightedness and lack

of vision directly results in huge social and financial costs. This can be illustrated in the acceleration of rate expenditure. Officials are being paid to handle a deluge of dissatisfied and unhappy ratepayers who, understandably, are complaining about the blunders of officialdom which could have been avoided if genuine participation had taken place. The community and the ratepayers pay twice: first for the blunders and, secondly, for the face-saving operations which follow.
Public participation and community involvement would make public services less expensive. I speak from experience of 14 years of community work at the rock face, the grass roots—call it what one will. More community involvement could result in a saving of expenditure which we all so much desire today.
The cold hand of bureaucratic indifference has stifled the latent British talent of finding solutions to urban problems. I recognise that it is possible to justify the increased size and scale of local authorities, but that does not absolve them for failing to recognise the attendant problems that result.
By mobilising local people to do things for themselves, it is possible to envisage neighbourhood development groups which would have delegated powers from these huge councils and be responsible for the day-to-day running of council estates. The make-up would be heavily biased towards the people in the local community and the leaders of the community groups. By all means let us have professional guidance from the social work area team leaders, the local councillors and someone from the treasurer's department to see that the books are in order. But they must have power and money to deal with the blocked gutter and the broken paving-stone, to plant trees. finance play schemes and run community centres. They would have their own labour force. They would be there for and of the people. This would introduce an important new element into local government with which people would be able to identify and feel once more that the neighbourhood was truly part of their lives.
Unless we introduce this kind of innovation the nerveless hand of bureaucratic inertia will demand more money from us for a poorer quality service and at


ever-increasing cost. The decision facing the House today is whether it will send a message of hope to all those people who have come to despair of politicians and Government.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Dean: May I first apologise for the wording I used in an interjection during the speech of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). My wording was perhaps not correct. If any offence was taken at my use of non-parliamentary language, I offer an apology.
Looking at the signatories of the motion, I am rather surprised to see the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have had some experience of dealing with rate support grant negotiations over the last two years as a representative of an association of local authorities. I should not have thought that the Leader of the Opposition was the best person to become involved in predictions of rates and at what figure they ought to be levied.
The Leader of the Opposition made a speech on 13th December, 1972 at a luncheon to celebrate the centenary of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Quite a number of Cabinet Ministers were also there in support of the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Prime Minister. At that time the worry about rates was the effect of the revaluations. An average revaluation of two-and-a-half times the original rateable value was being done nationally. The then Prime Minister said in his speech that he saw no reason why, because of revaluation, rates would increase at all.
It was just after that time that the imbalance in the rate support grant formula showed itself so drastically biased against some areas that a deputation from the large conurbations went to see the right hon. Gentleman, who agreed that the formula showed that instead of receiving 58 per cent. of their expenditure in rate support grant some authorities were receiving a proportion as low as 39 per cent. The then Prime Minister conceded that this was a very grave injustice which ought to be put right.
But what did the right hon. Gentleman do? That was in January 1973, three

or four months before the rates were to be levied by the local authorities. He said that the time factor would not allow for any such alteration but that it would be put right by the Government in the 1974–75 rate support grant negotiations. Those negotiations started to emerge last autumn. They were based almost identically on the grants that have been levied, or a portion of them, by the Secretary of State. But what happened? The money had been apportioned and it was obvious that if the large conurbations which were then to receive domestic relief of 7p were to be given a further 6p or an across-the-board 13p levy, it could be done only at the expense of some authorities that were receiving a tremendous amount of domestic rate relief. Some authorities which are now receiving 13p, like others, over the last two years have suffered rate increases of tremendous dimensions.
Conservative Members have spoken of the action of the previous Chancellor in helping certain areas in distress. But he did not help any of the large conurbations which sent representatives to see him. The equalisation that has been brought about is entirely just. In the financing of local government there will have to be a great increase in the amount of money that is found to enable local government to operate. That is why the motion is almost meaningless. A large number of hon. Members were absent from the House when the subject was debated some time ago. It is clearly very difficult for a Conservative Member who represents a city constituency which has now received rate relief at a level that it ought to have had years to go into the Lobby in denial of that and then to have to tell his constituents in, for example, Leeds, Liverpool or Birmingham that they must find another £3 million or £4 million because they will not get the same domestic rate relief as, for instance, Yeovil, Cornwall and similar areas.
I am not crowing about the fact that the rates of some people have risen dramatically. I understand their chagrin and dismay. In the major conurbations, however, one still finds that the person living in an ordinary three-bedroom house is still paying more in rates than someone living on the periphery in one of the metropolitan districts who is occupying the same type of house.
I could not understand the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) when he said that one of the grumbles in his area was that people had no facilities in return for their rates. If that is so, why do they need this massive injection of rate relief? What is it for if they have no facilities?
I welcome the Secretary of States' announcement that he is to set up an inquiry. I hope that it will report very quickly indeed. In view of the rate of inflation there is a sense of urgency, and this matter cannot wait for 12 or 18 months. There has now been enough examination of the alternative forms of financing local government for us to come up with something better than the present rating system.
However, overnight the Secretary of State has put right a grave injustice. It is unfortunate that some authorities were made to suffer. But it is still only a measure of justice. People in inner London boroughs are still paying higher rates, as a proportion of outgoings from the family budget, than those living in outer London boroughs. A person living in the centre of Birmingham will be paying out more in rates than people in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and those in many other constituencies. This is part of the imbalance that has always existed. Part of it has been put right.
When I began my speech I was not sure that I was following a maiden speaker. I have been informed that I have done so. I should like to compliment the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on a very good maiden speech. Clearly, as a social worker and in view of all the work he has been doing, he has tremendous knowledge of the subject and an appreciation of people's rights to run their own affairs. I compliment him on the content of his speech. We shall look forward to hearing him again.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: I start by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen) on his maiden speech. His predecessor as Member for Wavertree was held in great affection by the House. From what my hon. Friend has said this evening, it is clear that we shall be look

ing forward to hearing him many times in the future.
Criticism of the rating system is not new. It has been rising steadily over the years. It has concentrated on two main aspects—first, that not everyone pays rates; second, that rates are not a buoyant tax but a regressive tax. When rates were low these criticisms were muted. It is only since the imposition has increased that we have the situation in which this tax imposes quite unacceptable burdens on certain citizens just because they are householders.
Like many other hon. Members, I have had a number of letters and petitions on this subject—more than I have had on any other issue since I became a Member of the House in 1970. Although local authorities realise the situation, they are relatively powerless to do anything about it. I have been working in local government for 10 years. That experience has taught me that most councillors are more concerned with keeping up the standard of services than with effecting economies in expenditure.
I was most interested when the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised the problem of the threshold agreements, because these are adding, and will continue to add, an enormous extra burden on local authorities. Yet all the alternatives to the rating system have significant disadvantages. Although I believe that some form of locally-based income tax or sales tax will eventually come, while retaining some form of property tax, these changes cannot come quickly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) explained. Therefore, these are no easy solutions to our present problem.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to the inquiry he is to set up, but apparently it cannot report until 1975 and cannot, therefore, help us in our immediate difficulties. I believe that the last Government were right to introduce a variable rate of domestic support. It was an attempt, albeit an imperfect attempt—and we all realise that—to iron out some of the special problems of individual authorities. In my county, Buckinghamshire, it took into account the loss from that county into a neighbouring county of a high rated


area. It also took into account the point made by two Northamptonshire Members that we are establishing a new city which requires very heavy initial expenditure, and, therefore, imposes a heavy burden in these early stages of development. Even with this variable relief the domestic rate increase would have been substantial, and industry and commerce, of course, would have been subject to the full amount. That point has not been raised today and is sometimes overlooked. Then, for reasons best known to themselves, the Government swept it all away, and in my constituency that meant an extra imposition on the domestic ratepayers under my two local authorities of 8·5p and 7·5p respectively.
My right hon. Friend was correct to say that there could be no return to the original levels of domestic support. That would be impossible. The only answer that makes sense, therefore, is for additional relief to be made available during the second half of the current financial year so that at least the worst inequalities can be removed.
There is one other aspect I wish to raise which the House should consider carefully. Nothing typifies more the general character of this country or the way we run our affairs than the way the taxes and rates are paid by the population. That is now at risk. I have been approached over the last few weeks by responsible people asking for my support for some form of rate strike, and citing instances where this has been done elsewhere. I have strenuously refused to have anything to do with this because the law is completely indivisible. We cannot obey some parts and disobey others, in spite of the examples I have referred to. If, on top of the strains imposed by inflation, the ratepayers of this country are to be subjected to this additional unjust imposition we are courting disaster. On behalf of my constituents I must tell the Government that it does not matter what they do, but they must do something, and they must do it quickly.

7.35 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I wish to address a number of remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State over the broad canvas of the need for a

complete reform of the rating system as it affects the domestic householder. There is no doubt that the recent anger we have seen throughout the country—and this has been particularly acute in my constituency—is directed to the fact that the whole system is anachronistic, unjust and quite inadequate for providing the necessary finance for modern local government.
It is a system which goes back to the Statute of Artificers of 1601 in the reign of Good Queen Bess. It is a system of regressive taxation, taking no account of people's ability to pay and bearing particularly hard on retired people with fixed incomes which are declining in real value.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, the system takes no account of the number of people who are resident in a property or the number of income earners there. It is a system based wholly on hypothetical criteria like the fictitious rent of a property, and people find it ludicrous that they should have to contribute more to the running of local authority services simply because they have more windows or because they install central heating or make other adjustments to their house. Coupled with these factors is the fact that the rating system is not generally understood. Hon. Members will gather from the correspondence they have received on the subject that people are almost completely unaware of how the system operates, and I have found an increasing number of people who do not know how to go about getting a reduction in the rateable value of their property.
Because of this unpopularity the system puts a severe brake on a lot of initiative that should be shown by local authorities. Local authorities see the need for better roads and better schools, or water authorities see the need for new enterprise in particular areas—the introduction of new sewerage schemes, for example. Yet all this is damped down because of the effect that the authorities feel it will have on the local rates. Because the rating system is unpopular there is less inclination on the part of people to press local government for necessary improvements in their areas. Their way out of the dilemma is always to call for increased financial help from the central Government, so that when some new initiative


is required to expand local authority services the initiative is always left to the Government.
This leads to arguments over the rate support grant and dispute with the central Government over who should pay what. In any alternative system which is designed to replace the present rating system, finance must as far as possible be given a local base. I believe strongly in the principle, which is perhaps a constitutional one, that he who pays the piper should call the tune, and therefore the person who tries to call the tune in local government should essentially be the one who pays the piper.
The difficulties caused by the rate support grant in certain areas stem from the fact that the money is coming from the central Government to pay for a lot of schemes which are determined locally. There difficulties are reflected in some of the sections of the Kilbrandon Report on the Constitution where it discusses the possibilities of financing the new regional authorities, and all these difficulties apply with equal force to the system of financing local government.
I think, therefore, that those who cry out for a transfer of the cost of main local authority services to national funds are dodging the issue and that if there were to be a transfer of the cost of, say, education we should seriously consider whether it would be right for education to be maintained under the control of local government.
If we are to maintain local government in its present form, with its present functions, we must have a financing of local government based on locally-raised revenue for those specifically local purposes. I agree with the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have overall control of public expenditure because of the need to operate demand management in the economy as a whole, but I think that with that one proviso we must have the greatest possible local flexibility in the financing of local government.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced this afternoon the setting up of a committee of inquiry with the broadest terms of reference into the whole of local government financing. I welcome

the decision to set up the inquiry but I am a little worried about the breadth of its terms of reference. As one of my hon. Friends said, most of the information is already available. The matter has been talked over for many years. Even though the Green Paper was a very green document in metaphorical terms, at least the information is there.
I hope that the committee may be given more specific terms of reference, and told to direct its attention to particular means of raising local government revenue and the practicalities entailed so that when the report becomes available an alternative system can be put into practice rapidly.
As I consider all the various alternative ways of raising local government finance, I have no doubt that the only equitable solution to the problem is a local income tax. I find that that solution has the widest agreement among the people of my constituency. It would be a buoyant means of taxation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) that we should examine particularly how local income tax is applied in Sweden and Finland. I hope that details of the system there will be scrutinised by the committee of inquiry so that it can make detailed recommendations on how it might be applied here.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I think that some form of local taxation is the answer—but does he think that it would be centrally or locally organised and administered?

Dr. Marshall: I was just coming to those points. I think not only that local income tax would be widely acceptable but that in general it would be far more easily understood, certainly much more easily understood than the present system. Therefore, it would be a system that people would be prepared to operate.
There are difficulties in the application of such a tax. We should have to look into the details of how it would be raised. Would it be operated through the Inland Revenue? Would the collection of local income tax be carried out at the same time as the collection of national income tax, with a return from the Inland Revenue to treasurers of local authorities? All those practical difficulties must


be ironed out within the terms of reference of the committee. There would be much more work for employers who operated PAYE systems as their personnel departments would have to take into consideration all kinds of factors, such as the local authority areas within which employees lived.
In addition there would be the need to retain a means of Government support to equalise the local income tax revenue to different local authorities. It would be wrong for some local authorities to be penalised because people in their areas had much lower incomes than people elsewhere. That problem could be dealt with through the machinery of the resources and needs elements of the present rate support grant. I would retain the rate support grant in that form, but I should like to see as far as possible the rest of local government expenditure depending on locally-raised revenue by means of a local income tax.
I hope that the committee will do its work not only rapidly but in great practical detail and that it will go particularly thoroughly into the means of raising local income tax, which I see as the only remedy to the desperate situation in which we are placed.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: In Hertfordshire there is unprecedented dismay over rating. Domestic ratepayers in my constituency face increases of up to 40 per cent., a figure which represents personal hardship for many people. Those increases, combined with earlier rate increases, of which Hertfordshire has had more than its fair share, have meant that Hertfordshire has recently suffered desperately in the matter of rates.
The result is that, instead of paying 4 per cent. of their income in rates, most people find themselves paying 6 per cent., which is equivalent to an extra week's pay being taken from them each year. That is intolerable.

Mr. John Ovenden: Mr. John Ovenden (Gravesend) rose—

Mr. Allason: I will not give way. I promised Mr. Speaker that I would take four minutes, and I intend to keep my promise, as so many other hon. Members have tried to do.
What is the Government's feeling about capital expenditure? The previous Government called on local authorities to reduce their capital expenditure by 20 per cent. What do the Government say to a local authority which instead raises additional rate poundage to spend on capital projects? Is that legitimate, or is there a justifiable complaint against an authority which does that, and does it in a substantial way?
Some parts of my constituency are in the area of the Anglia Water Authority, which charges a 6·8p water rate, whereas other parts—happily, most—are in the area of the Thames Water Authority, which charges a 3·8p water rate. One can understand the immense discontent felt by people over that difference, which depends on the watershed on which they are situated.
What is the position over consumer consultation for the water authorities? I know that they report at the end of the year, but is there not a case for a consultative body, such as exists in other industries, so that there can be some protection for the consumer against possible extravagance by authorities?
I cannot now deal with what will happen next year. However, there is still time to put matters right this year. The Secretary of State has made a £200 million switch from the rural areas to the urban areas, and he could not take it back again even if he wished to. But he can introduce a rate support grant increase order to restore to the rural areas what has been taken from them. If he does that in time for the autumn rate demand he can remedy the situation. I ask him to do that, and my constituents demand that he does it.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. John Ovenden: We have heard today some tremendous examples of humbug. We are faced with a motion which is a supreme example of political opportunism. We on the Labour benches have not spent the past few months bemoaning the inheritance willed to us by the former Government, because that inheritance was probably no worse than that which we should have expected.
It is not fair that my right hon. and hon. Friends should be asked to carry the can for decisions of the Conservative


Government when we have had no opportunity to make any effective changes. This Government came into office only four weeks before the new local authority financial year was due to start. In such a position, the Government could not make changes to the needs and resources element of the rate support grant. What Conservative Members are saying is that the special needs of their areas are not being properly looked after by the rate support grant system. They say there are inaccuracies and mistakes in the allocation of the needs and resources element. These decisions were made by the former Government. Hon. Members can hardly ask for a special grant to compensate them for something to which they originally agreed.
My right hon. Friend has made only one change, and that is in the allocation of the domestic rate support grant. It may be that Conservative Members representing specific areas may object to that action. Can they really blame my right hon. Friend for taking back a bit of the money which was allocated by them in the reverse direction? Can they blame us for taking from Paul some of the money robbed from Peter in the first place? There is no justification whatever, if the calculations of the resources and needs element are correct, for a variable domestic grant.
I have not heard one hon. Member try to justify this. What they are saying is that some of their areas are now being forced to take a higher share of the rate burden, and in some way they should be compensated for this. If another of my right hon. Friends decides to introduce a progressive form of redistributive taxation, which we hope he will, will it be said that those from whom money has been taken should be compensated for perhaps the first or second year? I hope not.
In many areas the effect of what was done by the Secretary of State pales into insignificance when compared with the other factors which have forced rates up—local government reorganisation and inflation. There are many of us who believed, when the previous Government forced local government reorganisation upon reluctant local authorities—I accept that some local authorities are always reluctant about reorganisation but a large number were right to be reluctant about the half-baked and half-hearted

system forced upon them on this occasion—that the Government should have been prepared to carry a bigger share of the burden of the costs of reorganisation. This is what hon. Members opposite should have campaigned for during the period of the last Government.
There is also the inflation factor. It looks to me as though the calculations which municipal treasurers made and the views which they took about inflation will prove to be far more correct than decisions taken by the last administration. We have to look at local government finance as a whole.
I am disappointed that there has been little discussion on what I thought was the major item in the motion. Instead we have had a repeat of the debate on the rate support grant at the end of which the Government had a comfortable majority. I would have thought that it could have been concluded from that majority that they had the confidence of the House.
Today we have had a discussion about local government finance generally. Some people are falling into the trap of thinking that there is a magic wand in local government which can produce a system acceptable to everyone and which will relieve people of the burden of paying for local services. There is a reluctance on the part of many people to face up to the harsh and unpalatable facts of life in local government.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If the Secretary of State could freeze rents on the ground that incomes were restricted should he not also compensate local authorities such as my own which have to pay another £20,000 because of the rent freeze? Should he not reduce rates because incomes are restricted?

Mr. Ovenden: I understand that the hon. Lady supported her party when in Government. This is another example of the political humbug of which I spoke earlier. She did not oppose the actions taken by her party.
However, I was about to move away from this rather sterile debate about the rating position this year and look at local government finance generally. The harsh, unpalatable fact of local government finance which we must face up to, if we are not to delude ourselves, is that


the cost of local government services must rise over the years, and at a faster rate than the average rise in prices. This is because if the general level of wages in this country rises at a higher rate than that of prices, and presumably hon. Members hope that they will, then, since 75 per cent. of local authority expenditure goes on labour costs, it follows that the rise in wages must be higher there than the rise in prices in manufacturing industry, where the labour content is far less.
There are only three other solutions. Those are that local authority wages should be depressed below the level of general wages, that the services which they provide should be cut back or that central Government should bear a larger share of the expenditure. There is a serious conflict, which we have not faced up to, when we talk about shifting a bigger burden of expenditure to central Government and at the same time believe that local independence can be maintained. Those who believe that any Government, of whatever political complexion, will foot a bigger share of the Bill and yet allow decisions on these services to remain in local hands are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): It is interesting to note that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) relied heavily in her speech on the fact that the previous Government gave help to the National Health Service by moving it from local government to the central Exchequer, which makes my hon. Friend's point. When that is done local democratic control is also removed.

Mr. Ovenden: I am sure that there are many other instances of such action. Those who believe that they can send the bill to central Government and maintain control could not be further from the truth. If we are to provide the services needed in local government—and we all know that, although we get letters protesting about the rates we get an almost equal number demanding improvements in services—then we will have to provide a larger share of our resources for local authority services. We are under tremendous pressure to make more money available for the disabled. Every local

authority is under pressure to improve or make available sport and leisure facilities. Local authorities have to find the money for this from somewhere. Under our present system every local election becomes a dutch auction on the level of rates. Parties vie with each other about who can depress the services most to keep the level of rates constant.
We must look for a new system of financing local government. We want a dynamic system which can provide revenue and which keeps pace with the general level of wages, or possibly does better than that if we are to improve the services. Our present system is agreed by everyone to be archaic and nonsensical.
I read the report of the Second Reading debate on the Rating and Valuation Bill which took place 11 years ago. After reading it, I was no wiser about what was meant by "gross values" than were the hon. Members who took part in the debate. It is a meaningless term which can be defined by no one.
The Liberal Party suggested site value rating. I fail to see how a change of that type will achieve a more equitable system. All it will achieve is a system which is as unjust in its operation as is the present system, added to which we we shall have the cost of introducing site value rating. That suggestion holds no benefit; it holds only extra expense for us.
Besides being dynamic, the new system must also be fair. It must be based on the ability of individuals to pay. I have received letters from old-age pensioners who complain that they have to pay the same rates as do households further up the road in which there are two or three wage-earners. That is a valid point. It is equally valid to take into account not only the number of individuals but the income within a household. I can point to some households in which there is only one wage-earner but the income is as great as it is in households which have two or three wage-earners.

Mr. Jim Lester: The comparison is constantly being drawn between a single-person household and a household which consists of several wage-earners. It must be remembered that 60 per cent. of the rate is supported by central Government taxes, and if four


people are living in a house they pay substantially more in taxes than does the single person living in a house. It may be rough justice, but inadvertently a balance is achieved. It is wrong to say that the people who pay rates are the only ones to make a contribution, because taxes also play a part and four people living in one household contribute very much more through taxation.

Mr. Ovenden: That is the supreme example of illogicality. Those individuals bear their own fair share of national income tax but pay only a quarter of the rates, which is totally unfair. The system which I want to see adopted would be based on income.
There is no panacea which will solve the problems of local government finance overnight. Many questions on local income tax remain to be answered. For example, should it be a flat-rate system or a sliding-scale rate as it is within the national Exchequer? I favour the sliding scale rather than the flat-rate taxation system. There is also the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) of how to offset the differences which arise between wealthy and poorer areas. Nothing will discredit a system of local income tax more than large variations between areas. If people working side by side take home at the end of the week vastly different earnings because of the local income tax they have to pay, that will undermine the system faster than anything.
In the context of a system of local taxation no one has mentioned what is to be done about the contribution which comes from industry in the form of rates. No one would suggest that we should relieve industry of its contribution so that the whole burden is put on local income tax. We must find an equitable way of getting industry to pay its share of the burden. That will be a problem for the inquiry which has been set up.
It will be a long, difficult job to reform a system which we have been trying to reform for decades. We must not hold out to people the hope of a quick and easy solution. We must not hold out to them that the problems of local government finance will go away if we change the system. All we can honestly say to people is that if we are to achieve expanding services in local government they will

be asked to pay a higher proportion of their incomes towards the maintenance of local authority services. That may be harsh and unpalatable, but it is a fact of life. We cannot hide our heads in the sand and avoid it.

8.06 p.m.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: This is an important subject upon which I made my maiden speech in March. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on his contribution. He began in a partisan way and I thought that I might have to be partisan in replying to him, but about one-third of the way through his speech took on a constructive form. He said that the cost of the services will rise. In speaking from the Opposition benches my task tonight is to make a small contribution towards ensuring that there is a fair system of taxation to meet those costs.
As the hon. Member for Gravesend said, what is to be done with industry is a matter for the inquiry. Once more we may get into the position where the towns which possess industry have much higher taxation, just as now they have a higher rateable value. Rural areas have no industry. The local taxation system will therefore have to be framed so that money can be taken from the richer areas and given to the rural areas. That problem will exist whatever system is adopted.
I am against the rating system. In addressing the House, I hope constructively, I want to accept responsibility for the actions of the previous Government, not having been here at the time, and I shall invite hon. Members on the Government benches to accept their responsibility. I use the word "responsibility", not "blame", because that must be the keynote. The previous Government were responsible for the removal of 10p in the pound from the grant for country areas such as Hereford and Worcester. We are responsible for taking that away. We shall serve no constructive purpose if we argue about money going from the towns to the country and vice versa.
We are also responsible for the rate of inflation until 28th February. I shall not go beyond that date. I shall try to approach this in a reasonable and sensible way. We are, therefore, responsible for the official allowance to local authorities for inflation at that time,


which amounts to 9p to 10p in respect of my own authority.
I sound a warning note on the urgency of the problem. Hereford and Worcester already, on the present rate of inflation, are between £5 million and £6 million "in the red ", which does not augur well for next year unless we get a fairer system into operation quickly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) well knows this too.
I accept responsibility for water reorganisation. There was too little control of last-minute expenditure. Water mains were being put in, the bill for which had to go to the new authority. Hardly a council in the country was ready properly to audit those precepts. The net result in my area is that the water rate has soared. I have accepted my share of the responsibility, and I invite Labour Members to accept their share of responsibility for the cut in domestic rate relief in the rural areas.
The hon. Member for Gravesend asked for the figures to be given. I can tell him that in Hereford and Worcester there is a variable rate relief for the domestic element ranging from 19½p to 29p. Some people have suffered a cut to 13p, making a maximum loss of 16p. Translated in terms of the rateable value on a council house or small private house in Leominster with, say, a rateable value of £202 this means an extra sum of 58p per week. On a house with a £240 rateable value, 70p extra will be paid. In the rural areas we have our poor as well as our rich. Indeed, we happen to be one of the lowest wage-earning areas in the West Midlands.

Mr. Ovenden: I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the House the rate in his area last year and what it is this year so that we can compare that figure with the burden placed on some of the cities and towns.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I have a file of figures in front of me, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that many of my constituents are suffering increases ranging from 80 per cent. up to 115 per cent. The average figure in the 600 square miles of my constituency comes out at something like 90 per cent. That is causing a serious problem in Herefordshire, and particularly in the Leominster district. We have heard a lot already

of figures like 40 per cent. or 60 per cent., I count myself modest in not having mentioned mine sooner.
There is a feeling in the usually non-complaining country areas, which normally take these things in their stride, that the towns are beginning to get on top of them. This applies not only to rates but right across the argicultural spectrum. We saw this plainly during the last debate on this subject when a number of my hon. Friends abstained. It must be said that we have many town Members, and indeed there are more town Members than country Members. As this feeling gains momentum and people's rates increase by an average of almost 100 per cent., there is bound to be protest. I protested rather peacefully when on Monday of this week the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was kind enough to visit my constituency. That protest was an orderly one, but the point I wish to emphasise is that the situation in the local authorities will not hold out for very much longer. That is why our motion asks for immediate relief to be given now.
The country is in a state of almost rebellion. I know that there is a letter waiting for me, which I have not yet read but about which I have heard, saying that from October in Herefordshire a rates strike is threatened. That is the position in my constituency and I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House are aware of similar protests.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend makes the strong point that there is an urgent need for action on rates and that this matter cannot wait until next year. Does he not concede that the present Government—and I am sure that Conservatives would accept responsibility during their term of office—have a responsibility for the rate of inflation now being encountered by local councils? Inflationary budgets have triggered off a threshold which has put many councils, particularly those in Cheshire, in tremendous financial difficulties. Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Government should now bring in an interim supplementary rate support grant?

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree with him that the greater the rate


of inflation, the greater is the urgency for action to be taken.
I wish to mention the problems of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Wales is not present. I raised this matter with him in an earlier debate, and to be fair, he did not then have much of chance to say anything when he wound up the debate. However my constituents would like to have a reply in regard to the Welsh National Water Development Authority.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the position. Our water rates have risen from a figure of 4·6p to 13·8p. We are just over the hill from a development area, and that area has a domestic rate relief of 33½p compared with our 13p. What makes the situation worse is that in Montgomeryshire, which happens to be in the Severn-Trent Water Authority area and which pays a water rate of 3·6p, the authority there still receives 33½p in domestic rate relief. That does not go down very well in my area.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he is aware of any rate increase announced at the end of the financial year on 31st March which has been changed since that date arising from any action of the Labour Government? If not, will he confirm that the rate increases arose as a result of the actions of the Conservative Government?

Mr. Temple-Morris: I was hoping for a slightly more worthy intervention than that. This problem was dealt with a little earlier in my speech. One of the major points touched upon in this debate concerns the variable clement. I was asking Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), to accept part of the responsibility for that.
I was about to make a point about the Welsh Water Authority. I have been speaking for too long, and I shall soon complete my remarks. With regard to the sewerage rate, I seek to provide that people are not double charged or that local authorities and district councils should introduce a septic tank-emptying service. I believe that the Government should ensure that either one course or the other should be adopted.
We are facing a crucial time in the country areas. I repeat that we face the possibility of a rates strike. We face widespread inflation. We also face the fact that many towns, which until recently have been quiescent on these matters, dislike a system in which rates are constantly rising. If inflation continues at its present rate, action must be taken and changes will have to be made in the system. Unless something is done to cope with the situation, and done soon, there will be a gradual loss of national party control in all local government, from whichever side it comes. We shall see a further fragmentation of democracy. This is very much our responsibility in this debate today.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. John Garrett: I wish to be brief, but first I must observe that any discussion of the future of the rating system should be set in the context of the future of local government itself. There is what I believe to be an alarming and continuing loss of local democratic control over locally-administered services. Local government is becoming progressively less local. Its recent history is the steady erosion of local authority powers. Unless the House takes some decision to the contrary, the process of bureaucratic centralisation, which was actively encouraged by the previous Government, will continue to gain in strength. The two-tier system of local government will inevitably encourage the shift of power away from the district to the county and we now have regional government in prospect. What is needed is a shift of power from the county to the district and from the district to the neighbourhood.
Local autonomy has been diminished as much as anything else because the revenue from rates is less and less adequate to support the tasks laid upon local government by central Government. That makes the need for a supplementary form of revenue most pressing. It seems to me that the most satisfactory form would be a local income tax similar to that which has been proposed by other hon. Members and which is successfully operated in other countries.
The Opposition's motion is the most remarkable piece of political bandwagoning since last week's debate on night storage heating charges. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has


described its basic hypocrisy. However, there is no profit to the ratepayer in bandying charge and counter-charge across the Floor of the House. What we must do is consider rating reform in the short term and in the long term. In considering the arrangements for next year I should like the Government to increase the total rate support grant as a high priority for public expenditure planning. Second, I ask that special arrangements be made to relate the grant to income levels. I am glad to know that my right hon. Friend has something like that in mind. Third, it is essential to base the needs element on more sensitive measures of need.
My right hon. Friend asked us to be specific in our recommendations, and I shall be. I believe that the resources element, which favours the authorities with a below-average rateable value, should be complemented by an income equalisation grant for areas with particularly low wage levels. First, there should be within the grant an allowance for each percentage point which a district falls below average national earning levels. That would ensure that the regressive nature of the rate burden which is so heavily felt in low wage areas, such as my constituency, would not continue. The reforms required in the needs element would be somewhat reduced in total as a result of the institution of an income-equalisation grant. That grant should provide that all the basic data on which the rate support grant is based, such as the total population, children and the over 65s, should be up-dated to the year of account. The 1974–75 grant was based on 1972 figures and failed to take account of the dynamic of population growth. The latest available figures should be up-dated by the average annual rate of increase in population in recent years. The very fast-growing county of Norfolk was penalised by the present arrangement of using historic figures which fail to take account of the lag between growth of population and growth of rateable values.
Second, the allowance for sparcity of of population is inadequate and fails to allow for the costs of servicing a scattered population, for developing new services in rural areas or for staffing small rural schools. Third, there is inadequate justification for the sizeable weighting in

favour of the South-East. Household costs are certainly not lower in Norfolk than in the South-East, and in such matters as transportation Norfolk's costs may well be higher. I ask the Department of the Environment to look again at the weightings in the needs element and to produce factors which more closely relate to the cost of services and the general cost of living.
Local government will require a continually growing share of the national income for many years ahead. The demand for environmental and personal services aimed at enhancing the quality of life will increase faster than the average rate of increase of the gross national product. That is something with which we must learn to live. Internationally we are a country with a wide range of local services but with a low local revenue base. As local government becomes more concerned with comprehensive environmental planning, renewal and the control of the environment, the more important local direction becomes, subject, of course, to central Government influence on total expenditure in the interests of the economy as a whole and the maintenance of standards of service.
The power of local direction will be much enhanced by a source of income additional to the rates. Local income tax is the best proposition. If local democracy is to be strengthened—and I believe that strengthening it is essential—a new and fairer source of revenue, locally raised, is crucially important. There would still, of course, have to be redistributive arrangements between rich areas and poor areas on the general lines of the present rate support grant.
Giving economic power back to local authorities and giving them increased autonomy, which I believe to be right, calls for a response from the authorities. As they grow larger they become more remote. It seems essential that they try to create neighbourhood councils or associations based on a ward, a parish of a group of city streets, and to give those local neighbourhood councils powers to spend and provide local environmental and social services, each based on a community centre or meeting place.
It seems important that councils provide more information to their people by an annual report, which was suggested


by the Bains Report but never taken up. It seems important that they adopt a modern system of expenditure planning and control by programme in which the attempt is made to describe services as programmes of expenditure and to show the community their impact and. effectiveness and benefits.
It is important that the authorities open up the town halls and their administrative services to the community. The local authority scene should be one of innovation and experiment with new services, and not just an interpretation of statutory requirements. There should be a continual search to understand and satisfy the needs of the community. We want local authorities that are less subservient to Whitehall and more accountable and responsive to the communities that they serve. Such change will take place only if the authorities are given greater freedom, and that can only follow from a new source of revenue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next lion. Member, may I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's suggestion at the beginning of the debate that it would be helpful if speeches were short. There are still many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak and the time is very limited.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) displays a good knowledge of local government from which I am sure his constituents will benefit. However, like some of his hon. Friends, he made two propositions which I find it difficult mutually to reconcile. The first is that more money should be spent locally and the second is that rates or local tax should somehow be lowered. I do not believe that any sleight of hand could make that a sound system.
In Gloucestershire the rates have gone up by about 52 per cent. Such increases have been described today by hon. Members opposite as entirely "just" and as "social justice". There are various causes. Reorganisation of local government undoubtedly has played a part, but that is not the basic cause. Inflation has played its part. The appetite of the people has played its part in that we demand better services, and it is difficult to refuse. Central legislation by

the present Government has played its part. The rent freeze has been a heavy impost and has added substantially to local costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) said. But the most important part has been the decision of the Secretary of State about the variable domestic relief. In Gloucestershire this has meant that an additional £9 million has had to be found, and that has accounted for 22 per cent. of the increase we have suffered. It must not be forgotten that that has occurred in the countryside, where there are far fewer amenities than there are in our cities and where we cost the country far less. It reflects no doubt the estimate of the Secretary of State of where support lies for his Government.
The result has been a great burden, all in one year and too heavy to be borne in one year. It is grossly unfair. In the short term we must have a bigger Government grant to get over it. Furthermore, the rates are bound to go up again next year. The estimate of the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is 25 per cent. Other hon. Members put it at a much higher figure. It would be quite intolerable if we had to face such a state of affairs next year.
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State appeared to have no sense of urgency. He has appointed a committee of inquiry which will not report for two years. If that is the best he can do, he should consider resigning. For the short term it is an impossible proposition. I hope that we shall hear what is to be done. So far we have heard nothing of value.
In the long term we should reduce the costs falling upon the rates. First of all, education should come off the rates entirely. In the old days education was a local service. It is no longer that now. It is subject to central direction. In the Stroud area we have two good grammar schools. Some of the people paying rates want to keep them though that cannot be said of everyone. But at present the people are paying rates to close down those schools or to make them comprehensive, because that is the order of the Secretary of State for Education and the people can do nothing about it. If the Secretary of State insists on telling the local authority what to do,


it is the taxpayer who should find the necessary money and not the ratepayer.
Fire and police services should be looked at as well to see whether the weighting is fair.
Like other hon. Members, I believe that if in the end we are to give any kind of local responsibility and independence, some form of local tax will have to be devised. There have been suggestions about a local income tax about a poll tax and about a mixture of the two. They are all sound ideas, and they work in other countries. I welcome the suggestion that we should study the methods adopted in other countries. At the moment, we pay our taxes in sorrow but our rates in anger. That is unnecessary. After all, they are both taxes, and we should be sorrowful about both, not angry about one.
We could at the same time keep some form of household tax. I do not rule that out. But whatever is done will have to be done right away if the countryside is not to be decimated and driven to despair by the actions of present Government.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I wish to strike a parochial note, which is not inappropriate in a debate about rates, and to draw attention again to a matter which is of deep concern to my constituents. In doing so I address myself to my own Front Bench.
I refer to the difficulties encountered by the metropolitan borough of Knowsley, which is one of those anomalies of which there are only five in the country—a new council which has no county basis on which to base its expenditure for future years.
In determining the rate support grant for Knowsley, I contend that the Government applied figures which meant that the costs attributable to Knowsley were far too low, with the result that the figures for rate support grant were far too low. That may seem a contentious assertion. Thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, Knowsley received an additional 7p in rate support grant. Although we are very grateful for my hon. Friend's efforts, we contend that we should have a further 7p to meet the needs of the area and its very clear and specific problems. They

are problems specific to that council, and they are shared by few others in the country. The domestic element in the rate support grant should be 20p.
In announcing his variation of the rate support grant, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to it as "rough justice". For my constituents the justice was damned injustice. As I say, the metropolitan borough council of Knowsley has no base on which to determine its expenditure. The Government grant for this year was based upon a proportion of expenditure by the Lancashire County Council for the year 1972–73. Clearly that was an absurd calculation, because in the intervening period the population and with it the responsibilities and services increased enormously.
It is even more absurd when one takes into account certain other factors. In education, for example, the apportionment was made pro rata to the population of each new district. That is not a principle with which I would normally quibble. Nor would I expect that many other hon. Members would quibble with it if the school population per thousand of the population was the same throughout the area of the Lancashire County Council. Yet that is not the case. In the Knowsley Borough Council area the figure is one in four whereas throughout the county it is one in five. That figure makes the point more forcibly.
The estimated expenditure for education for 1974–75 in respect of the additional pupils remaining at school due to the increase in the school leaving age was calculated on a national basis, which gave an average of 34 per cent. Yet in the Knowsley council the figure is double that at 68 per cent.
We contend that that part of the rate support grant based on the social services statistics is again too low. The apportionment should have been made on a case work basis and not the basis employed by the Government. In Knowsley, for various reasons the case load is excessively high. Knowsley Borough Council has had to provide new headquarters because of its lack of any former borough status. There were no headquarters for education, the libraries or the social services administration. The council had to take on the provision of a wide variety of ancillary services in order to carry out those functions.
The burdens imposed by the previous administration's reorganisation of local government on those of my constituents who live in the area of Knowsley Borough Council are excessive and require greater Government assistance than has been forthcoming so far. This is even clearer if we look at the problems of that area of Knowsley Borough Council that is in my constituency. I refer to the town of Kirkby—whose domestic rate is higher than that of any other district in Knowsley. We have a differential rate system. The rate is 71·1 per cent.
The whole purpose behind the reorganisation of local authorities was to create, in the words of Lord Redcliffe-Maud, a new community of interests, a new identity of interests.
We have one authority, one set of services, yet we have different rates for different areas within that authority. That is clearly inequitable. If the same services are provided and enjoyed in common, they should be paid for on the same uniform basis. We object very strongly to a differential rating system that applies to the detriment of my constituents in Kirkby. I do not consider that differential system to be fair. I want the same rates for the same ratepayers in the same authority. I should like the Government to give a clear commitment to ending what Opposition Members have referred to as the iniquitous system of differential rating.
Kirkby is the highest-rated town on Merseyside. It is one of the highest-rated towns in the country. It is an area which has the highest rate of unemployment. It has the highest number of low-paid people. It has a larger number of children under the age of 16 than any other town in Western Europe. It has enormous social problems. We have high unemployment, low pay, a large number of children and tremendous social problems; yet that area has to pay a higher rate than any other district in the same metropolitan borough, a higher rate than is paid by any comparable area on Merseyside.
My constituents will have a wry smile when they hear of some of the complaints addressed in this House tonight, when they compare their services and the rates they have to pay with the rates paid by the constituents of those Members who have been most vociferous and most

opportunistic in their claims. What we need is positive discrimination in favour of areas of need and not based upon a series of abstract figures.
I turn now to the purpose of the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah.'] Of course, if one hears too many cries of "Ah" one reacts and tends to speak for longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) said, rating as a system has been attacked for a long time. It is an inequitable and regressive tax. But we have been talking about getting rid of it for a good 50 years, ever since the old Board of Inland Revenue reported in 1913 on various suggestions for ending the system.
Few people would disagree in principle with the need to shift the burden of financing local government away from rates and on to ability to pay. There have been many suggestions for forms of local income tax, pay-as-you-earn and entertainments tax. But what the House should remember is that this is no simple proposition. There is certainly a need to move the burden away from rates and on to ability to pay, but it will be a difficult and cumbersome process. There is no easy answer. All the suggested solutions encompass many difficult administrative problems.
What I am very pleased about, ironically, is that the furore caused by the tremendous rate increases this year has at last galvanised one Government into action. I am in favour of far more support for ratepayers and for their being far more vociferous in their demands, so that we can at last end the rating system and achieve a more equitable system based on income rather than home. What has been lacking in the past and what I believe is present in the Secretary of State today is the political will, the guts and the courage to implement those proposals.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: As my hon. Friends are here to make their speeches and not to listen to mine, I will try to be as brief as possible. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) spoke eloquently on behalf of his constituents and I shall seek to speak for mine.
We have all been inundated with letters. We have attended meetings with hundreds of people present. I have been asked to


present a petition to the House next week, which I shall gladly do, signed by thousands of my constituents. Even today, 20 members of my council came down to make their representations on this issue, so deep is the feeling in my part of the world, where we face an increase of some 70 per cent.
I was stimulated into trying to do something about this problem when I got so many letters which underlined the absolute inequity of the present system. An old lady wrote to say that there were four wage earners and three cars next door, yet she had to pay the same rates. We have all heard of similar examples. This year, they have been exaggerated by the wanton disregard of rural areas displayed by the Government in redistributing the rate support grant. That alone has made a difference on average of £9 per year to every ratepayer in my constituency—and they know who is responsible for that bill.
These increases are a blow to the owner-occupiers; the people who are most hit are the young marrieds struggling to buy their own homes, and the elderly who, in the evening of their lives, feel that they should be allowed to enjoy what they have struggled to buy.
What has thrown this matter into disturbing perspective is the Government's action, on taking office, in freezing council rents. I am not commenting on that, but the contrast between the two things has been an insult to owner-occupiers.

Mr. Denis Howell: Council house tenants pay their rates.

Mr. Cormack: The Minister loves shouting from the Front Bench. Of course they pay their rates, but their rents were frozen. Their rents are subsidised—and under this Government's proposals will be more subsidised—by the rates.
There is a danger of a revolt of the middle classes throughout the country. I deplore this trend. At every meeting that I attend I say that I will have absolutely nothing to do with any rates strike or the withholding of payments. This is outside the law, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said, the law is indivisible. That cannot be said often enough or too fiercely and firmly.
Nevertheless, people are suffering. Over the years we have seen a massive redistribution of wealth. The middle classes have suffered relatively in their standard of living compared with the period before the war. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) earlier obtained some interesting information. We are now in a situation in which an investment of £2,000 in 1939 would require £83,500 to be matched today. That is a measure of the sort of redistribution that has taken place. If we are sincerely to preach about national unity—as we are—we should remember that there are many interests in this country to be considered which have been neglected and ignored in recent years.
We want two things. First, we want first aid. It is outrageous and totally unsatisfactory that the Secretary of State should have said today, in effect, that he is not proposing any first aid measures. That attitude comes from a Government who have spent £700 million on food subsidies—that cannot be too firmly emphasised; from a Government who at the moment are indulging in the grotesque irrelevance of proposing more nationalisation. This point ought to be hammered home, because my constituents feel about it bitterly.
I am glad, however, that the Secretary of State is to have a review of the rating system. I hope that the committee which is to carry out the review will meet quickly and will complete its deliberations before the end of 1975. One of its tasks should be to study the modest proposals which my hon. Friends and I have put forward and which will, hopefully, be debated in the House tomorrow. Their proposals seek to do two things. First, they seek to get away from the iniquitous system in which a person is penalised for carrying out internal improvements to his home, and secondly, they suggest that consideration should be given to the number of adult wage earners in a household, either in the form of a poll tax or some other method. I am not pretending that this measure is a panacea or perfection, but it is worthy of consideration.
Over and above all, there is the need to consider the cost of the education service, and perhaps the police and fire services, being at least in part removed from the ratepayer.
If the committee of inquiry can get down to its task quickly and report within a year we shall have some cause to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said today, but at the moment he has given us short commons and the people of this country will realise that that is so.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hatton: I must reveal to the House that have not had a single letter of complaint from any of my constituents regarding the rating system. I am certain that if the action which the Government took, and which I strongly supported, in substituting a common level of domestic relief had not been taken I would have had many complaints.
However, I welcome the unanimity which now exists for a review of local government finance. My city of Manchester was always at the top of the league table for rates. Manchester was the highest-rated authority in the country. I point out to members of the Opposition who are so worried about this matter that my party found itself in almost complete control of the local authority in Manchester year in and year out.
We have heard in the debate about the revolt of the middle classes. Some members of the middle classes reside in surrounding areas of the city of Manchester, but we have never previously heard any complaint from them about the rating system. They have been happy to live on the backs of their big city brothers. But now, of course, finding themselves in a somewhat different situation, they are welcoming the prevailing unanimity for the reform of local government finance.
I deeply resent the attacks which have been made on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The needs formula simply did not provide for the needs of the cities, including London. The inner city area problems were such that the needs element distribution formula became quite unsatisfactory. Indeed, the Conservative Government accepted without question the necessity for some redistribution.
I was present at many of the discussions in the House which took place on the rate support grant last year. They went on and on but ended in a totally unsatisfac-

tory manner that produced very great variations in relief, quite unjustified and unfair by any standards. The plain truth is that we had reached a situation in 1973–74 when the ill-distribution of the rate support grant was resulting in some areas paying far too much in rates and other paying far too little.
Average domestic rates in London and several other cities were about £75 to £100 but in large parts of the rest of the country they were between £35 and £50. Yet the education service, the most expensive of all local government services, was universally available throughout the country.
It is just 12 months since I had the honour of being elected to this House. I remember my maiden speech, which was on the subject of education. At that time the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I referred to the horrific situation facing chief education officers in preparing their rates. We all knew 12 months ago that this situation was upon us, but no action was taken by the Conservative Government. I believe, therefore, that it is humbug and hypocrisy to talk as Tory Members have done today about the rating situation.
I sincerely welcome this new-found unanimity for the reform of the rating system. As someone who has spent 20 years in local government, I know that the local government services at present are on the point of breakdown. Housing, education, social services, the arts and recreation are indeed the lifeblood of the nation, and hon. Members know from the letters they receive from constituents that these are the issues which interest and affect them from day to day.
We have before us a very complex situation in trying to solve the problem. As some of my hon. Friends have said, it is nonsense to believe that we can solve the problem very easily. I say to those who are in favour of a form of local income tax—which I believe is the road we have to take if we are to have a better system—that, whatever we do, we have to find a massive sum, and it will not be easy to find. As well as local income tax, we should also consider carefully the contributions that industry and commerce have to make to the rating of our big cities and towns.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Jim Lester: One supports the terms of this motion rightly because this year my own constituency faces a rate increase of some 60 per cent., but I will address my remarks particularly to what I believe is the breaking point, next year. I support what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). because the House has to recognise, if it believes in the fundamental place of local government in our society, that the rate of increase this year, to which my constituents object, and the anticipated rate of increase next year could deal a body blow to local government which while it may not administer a knockout—and Muhammad Ali has been mentioned—may make recovery difficult.
It is not always understood outside this House that some of the problems facing local government today are generated here, particularly because we pass eminently desirable legislation requiring local authorities' support and action and a share of the finance without anticipating the expenditure to be generated in terms of capital or revenue. As a consequence the build-up locally is inexorable. It may interest hon. Members to know that from March to June this year there have been before this House 13 Bills affecting local government, seven of them Government measures, six Private Members' Bills, some having a profound effect, some a minimal effect; but there are 13 Bills which could be listed to illustrate my point.
Secondly, the Government bear some responsibility because of their inability to indicate the level of national support in terms of grant until the budgetary procedures in local authorities are well under way, particularly in terms of expansion. Certainly, the example of this year will not bear repeating. Having had responsibility for producing budgets, I submit to Governments that they must produce indicative figures on a much clearer basis than is done at the moment in September and October of the year in which one is working if they want anything to happen in realistic terms of control. I suggest local government itself must bear some responsibility. Though one should not generalise, there are still local authorities which enter into expansive capital programmes, again without looking at the

revenue implications and the effect on their own rates in two or three years' time, and also because when they establish guidelines they do not take into account the national situation or the national interest when they calculate their future programmes. They pursue foolhardy levels of expansion.
Local government has the responsibility to act within a national framework and if the Government try, certainly for the next year, to declare and implement a moratorium on legislation unless supported with extra grant, and certainly if the Government will give an early indication of the level of grant, the response from local government as a body would be very much more realistic. During this debate many hon. Members have mentioned local income tax as a solution to our problem. Sweden has been talked of. It may interest the House to know that over the past two years there has been a freeze in the rate of local income tax in Sweden because of public pressure. This freeze has been brought about for precisely the same reasons as we are debating tonight. The shortfall has not been made up by national grant. The freeze has been genuine as a cut-back on actual local government action.
I say this only because when we talk of a fundamental review we all know there are no easy answers. To transfer services finishes local government. There may be better but not painless taxes. Those who complain about the rates system would sound more genuine if they did not use the pressent current of feeling to campaign against the system without costing and debating the alternatives and leaving it to the judgment of those who feel strongly about it to say which they prefer. The situation is so critical that it is in the long-term interests of local government as a body through its associations, not as individuals authorised to accept part of the discipline for next year, which I believe is critical, as has been done in Sweden. There are difficulties about alternative taxes. Even Sweden is looking for other ways than local income tax and national tax to finance local government in future.
The third element in the problem is the public. There is pressure for better standards. I have great sympathy with parents who want new schools for their


children and with pleas for greater levels of support for the elderly.
I think that we should have a standstill, or a near standstill, of expansion while the review takes place. I do not believe that we can afford to go further down this road without fundamental consequences to the checks and balances of our political system, without a rapid deterioration in the standards of service provided by local government, and without a continuation of this remorsless, mad, merry-go-round of inflation, which, when all is said and done, is the root cause of the problem.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. John Tomlinson: I shall be brief, but my brevity does not mean that I am unaware of the serious problem facing my constituents.
It is a tragedy that much of the argument in the debate has tended to become a slanging match between rural and urban interests. There have been suggestions that the rural concern has not been shared by the Government and others, and vice versa. I am concerned that this Government and Parliament should legislate in the interests of all the people in our community and that we should get a balanced approach to the financing of local government. We should not try to represent constituency interests at the expense of others in the community.
I represent a largely rural constituency. I am deeply concerned about a number of factors which in combination have led to an almost 100 per cent. increase in rates in my area. However, it would be wrong for anyone who is trying to be rational about the situation to attempt to attribute the failure of local government finance this year to the actions of my right hon. Friend in three and a half months in government, notwithstanding that the decision on the variable domestic element did nothing to help what was already a bad situation. Basically five major causes, one of which is the variable domestic element, have led to this situation in my constituency.
I am somewhat nauseated by the hypocrisy of Opposition Members, who with crocodile tears complain about the effects of what was largely their own creation, call for reform of local government finance

and castigate the Government for failing to do in three and a half months what they failed to do in three and a half years.
I hope that in his reply to the debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will indicate not only the long-term solution that will have to be found by reform of the rating system but the short-term amelioratives that my constituents can expect from a Labour Government, because they find it intolerable that, at a time when we are seeking to curtail expenditure and to control inflation, a combination of factors, many of which are outside the Government's control, has caused a substantial increase in their rates. [Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members opposite should read the resolutions and make their judgment on the complete record of what has been done.
The present Government inherited the worst record of inflation and the highest level of interest rates that the country has known and the criminal insanity of a reorganisation of local government that did not reorganise the financial basis of local government. Tory Members would do well to accept their responsibility for those matters and not to shout too loudly. There are a number of important issues which ought not to be the subject of jeers and laughter. While Conservative Members are indulging in that, my constituents and others are suffering from things which originated from their decisions.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give further indication not only of long-term solutions but of some short-term amelioratives. I hope he will deal with two specific points, to one of which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) referred—the problem of areas which are growing in population, where the needs element is based on statistics which are out of date. We have a two-year time lag in statistics. My constituency has grown in population to 98,000 electors, despite boundary changes. That kind of growth is causing major suffering there because the statistical basis upon which grants have been determined is two years out of date. I hope that we have specific proposals from my right hon. Friend about updating these figures.
Secondly, what is my right hon. Friend prepared to see done about the extension of central Government financing of key services such as education, the police and fire services? We already have some national services which are administered by local government, such as the health service. We already have a much more democratic base in local government, and we could have more democracy in locally-financed services.
I hope we shall have sufficient assurances on the short-term problems as well as for the long term so that we can continue to do the job in our constituencies of assuring people that the Labour Government are concerned about their problems and are seeking to remedy the defects which they inherited from the previous administration.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Michael Morris: The motion calls for interim relief. It calls for interim relief because there are hundreds of thousands of ratepayers in this country, not least in Northamptonshire, who find the increase in rates unacceptable. We on the Opposition side of the House know full well that, had a Conservative Government been in power, they would have listened sympathetically to the representations which we have made and would have taken some action on an interim basis. That is why people are concerned.
We look for certain other assurances tonight, in addition to that overall assurance. Let me be practical and to the point. Let us have a needs element which reflects the needs of the area more accurately. Mention has been made of bringing it up to date. Let us do that. That is not all that difficult. Let us also have some factors which more adequately reflect certain dimensions of particular areas. For example, one quarter of the needs of Northamptonshire is based on the needs of social services which take only 6 or 7 per cent. of the expenditure—and, to forestall comments, may I add it is a Labour-controlled authority? May we have an assurance that the cities lobby will not just steamroller the rural areas?

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman would not be saying that if he lived in Islington.

Mr. Morris: We should like an assurance that for once local government can be given the chance to plan ahead—I take up here the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester). Can we have some indication in the early autumn of what the level will be for next year?
It has also been said that we are now helping the inner areas. But Northamptonshire is growing in importance. We have four new towns. Will they have special help? It is no good the Secretary of State smiling. That will not help the ratepayers of Northamptonshire, nor will it help people in the inner London areas who are coming to Northamptonshire. We need practical financial help for the second half of this year.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This has been an interesting and at times passionate debate with certain outstanding features. First, there was an excellent maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen), who spoke of the amount of local government service to the community and participation of individuals in decision making. It was a remarkable debate because my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) did not participate, as he usually does in local government debates. It was a shame that Labour Members took exception to his absence. I am sure they will be fully aware that throughout the day and this evening my right hon. Friend has been in the Finance Bill Standing Committee putting forward important amendments about local government finance. If there is one Member of this House who does not deserve to be criticised for being absent from the debate it is my right hon. Friend.
It has been an astonishing debate because we heard from the Secretary of State the most astonishing, complacent and insensitive speech. He gave the impression that he did not appreciate the urgency or seriousness of the problem, and the only real meat we had from him was that there would be an inquiry and that rates would go up by about 30 per cent. this year overall. That figure surprised me, because it seemed to conflict directly with a parliamentary answer that I received from him two days ago.


However, he has courteously explained to me that the figures appear to be wrong. The other point that made the debate special is that not one Scottish Member has taken part from any of the parties in the House. That might give the impression that the problem of rate increases is an English one, and that is certainly far from the case, although the situation in Scotland is somewhat different.
We have not yet had local government reform in Scotland. That does not come until 1975, but the problems this has caused in England are creating concern for what might happen in Scotland. There was industrial derating in Scotland to the extent of 50 per cent., and, although that appears to be a generous concession, the indications are that industries in Scotland will pay at least as much in rates as industries in England.

Mr. William Baxter: The hon. Member will recognise that this matter will be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee next Thursday, when Scottish Members will have the chance of putting their point of view about the Scottish rating system.

Mr. Taylor: I am aware of that, and I remind English Members that there are many public seats in the Committee room, and I hope that they will be there to listen to the Scots talking about their problems.
The situation in Scotland is different because our organisation of water is different. Until recently we had water boards, but under local government reform we shall transfer them back to the local authorities, which is somewhat the reverse of what happened in England. Another difference is that in Scotland we have regular revaluations instead of the once-for-all revaluation which took place in England. However, all the indications are that in Scotland by and large, by any comparison, the amount of rates paid for comparable dwellings is considerably higher than in England and Wales. The burden of rates per head of the population is also greater, and we have the prospect of local government reform next year, which will mean considerable increases if events in England are a guide.
What we do not have, which probably explains why there has not been an explo

sion so far from Scotland, is the rate demands. Most of them have still to come in. With one or two exceptions the rate poundage has yet to be fixed. One was announced in the last 24 hours. We have also not had the peculiar injustice in our rate demands that was inflicted in England by the Secretary of State in his treatment of the variable grant.
We achieved a partial victory in the debate today in having secured a clear assurance from the Secretary of State that there will be an inquiry into the rating system. It has been generally agreed that, while there has been dissatisfaction with the rating system in many areas, recent events, particularly the dramatic increases in rate poundages, have now created a special situation which demands urgent Government action. I believe that if the Secretary of State had not made that announcement there would have been a major outcry.
Certain of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)—and the hon. Members for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) spoke about the injustices of the present system of rating. They pointed out that it has no direct regard to ability to pay and that many people are entirely excluded from making a direct contribution to rates. They said that it discriminates against the improvement of property. It is also a disincentive to regional development and can undermine national economic policy.
Consideration has been given to various alternatives. The one that has been mentioned most is the possibility of a local income tax, first suggested in the debate by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). That alternative could have serious repercussions, although the advantages have also been spelt out in the debate. The obvious repercussion which stands out a mile to someone representing a Scottish constituency is that if there were a local income tax there would inevitably be a relatively high rate of tax in areas where wages and profits tended to be lower and a relatively low rate where there was prosperity, with high wages and high profits.
Another serious problem is that of taxing industry and commerce when some multinational firms and British firms have factories in some areas, shops in other areas and warehouses in others. There is also the difficulty that a local income tax might be a frightening weapon to give into the hands of spendthrift local authorities.
We heard a little about the sales tax from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. It is an interesting suggestion, but it would be difficult to administer, and there is the problem that people in a rating area do not necessarily spend their money in the same area.
We heard nothing from our Liberal friends about site values, but we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Gravesend for making up for that by mentioning the subject himself.
I think that there has been general agreement that what is required, and the most useful avenue for consideration, is the transfer of some, if not all, of the burden of local government expenditure to the national Exchequer. Some of my hon. Friends have said "Let's think of transferring the burden of education or teachers' salaries." Some have gone even further and asked "Couldn't we transfer the major slice of spending to the national Exchequer?"
The advantages are obvious. First, there would be an equal burden of tax throughout the nation. No areas would have high or low rates; everyone would pay on the same basis. Secondly, it would be easier to pay for local government services through PAYE or through an expenditure tax in the shops. Thirdly, everyone would make a contribution to local government expenditure. One of the matters that cause most resentment is that some people do not make a direct contribution. Fourthly, the Government would have a more effective control of general spending.
However, one point has been rightly mentioned. We know the problems we have had in achieving distribution formulas. If we had a simple 100 per cent. block grant from the Government to every local authority to cover all its expenditure, it would be very difficult to arrive at the right formula, and there would be a considerable reduction in local freedom.
All those matters explain how difficult it has been to find an easy solution. There is no easy solution. The money must be found from somewhere, but what has happened over the past few months has made it clear that an alternative must be found to relieve some of the burden and prevent some of the savage rises in rates that there have been.
The Secretary of State was a little unkind in his attacks on the previous Government for their apparent sins of omission, and other sins. The one thing he cannot say about the last Government is that they were insensitive to the problem created by the rate burden. Just look at some of the measures introduced recently by the Conservative Government. First we had the massive improvement in the rate rebate scheme, which ensured that 3 million people who were unable to pay savage increases received special help. That was a major step forward. Second there was the system of variable domestic relief, of which we are not at all ashamed. Indeed many of us are rather proud of it. This was introduced to ensure that if there were to be increases they would be fairly shared across the country so as to ensure, as far as possible, a uniform increase.
Obviously, it was difficult to aim at that in advance, but the principle showed that our aim was to ensure that there would not be wide variations between the increases in different parts of the country. Third, we made a definite attempt to restrict unnecessary local government spending. Under the Counter-Inflation Act we had a procedure whereby local authority expenditure was reviewed by the Government and strong representations could be made. In Scotland the accounts of Dunbarton County, Renfrewshire and Edinburgh were challenged, and there is no doubt that this counter-inflation procedure resulted in reductions in expenditure. It was a deterrent against local authorities going ahead with extravagant schemes.
Fourth, we made substantial increases in the amounts of expenditure which were covered by Government grants. In England last year the grant which we agreed was the largest percentage in the history of the country—60·5 per cent. of total expenditure compared with only 57 per cent. in 1970 when we came into power. The global amount was much greater. In


Scotland the figure rose from 65 per cent. to 68 per cent. of total expenditure. We made a change, through the Local Government Act 1974, whereby the cost of mandatory student grants and teacher-training awards were transferred to the Exchequer, as were local authority health service charges.
One thing we cannot be accused of is being insensitive to the problem or being unwilling to act when a special situation arose. A special situation has certainly arisen now. We have had quite dramatic increases in rate poundages. In different parts of the country it has been 70 per cent., 80 per cent. and even 100 per cent. It is little wonder that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has said that a new militancy is being expressed by our ratepayers, who are demanding action.
If some of them had been listening to the Secretary of State tonight they would have been appalled at the complacent way in which he approached this urgent problem. It was suggested by one Labour Member that the changes made by the Secretary of State, when he changed the variable relief order, involved only 7 per cent. of total rate support grants. That sounds a small amount. But try to put that across to someone who was facing a 30 per cent. rate increase but who, because of the change, faces an 80 per cent. Increase! This is serious and urgent.

Mr. Tomlinson: Give us the figures.

Mr. Taylor: I will. In Cheshire the rates were up by 70 per cent. In Lincoln, before the change by the Secretary of State, the relief was to be 20p to 26p. It was cut to 13p.

Mr. Tomlinson: What were the rates?

Mr. Taylor: There has thus been an increase in the rate burden of 80 per cent., half of which is the direct result of the action taken by the Secretary of State. In Somerset the rates were to go up by between 10 per cent. and 41 per cent. They are now to rise by between 33 per cent. to 85 per cent. Others will be paying more. Much of this is the result of the action of the Secretary of State. He said that there was a higher rate burden in the cities and there should be a redistribution. He also said that there was a need for a fundamental re

distribution of wealth and asked: if the Socialists would not do it, who would? He must accept that with the evidence that the general level of services provided in cities and counties is vastly different, there may be a case for a change, but surely the time to make a dramatic and sudden change which can put up some people's rates by 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or 80 per cent. is not a time of rampant inflation when we are trying to control expenditure.
If it is said that there should be a uniform 13 per cent. throughout the country, why did the Secretary of State set a separate percentage for Wales and England? If there is a case for uniformity, surely it should apply to Wales as well as England. Once again the Secretary of State has shown that as well as having flexible language he has flexible principles.
What about Scotland? Not many rate increases have been declared in Scotland. There have been a few within the last 24 hours, and I will mention one or two. For example, Dunbarton county has just announced a 38 per cent. rise in rates. We have had an indication from provosts—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"]—I have the detailed infromation here. The county rate is 97p in the pound, an increase of 27p on the flat rate. That is for Dumbartonshire and it is the first Scottish declaration we have had.
It is sometimes suggested that we deliberately pick out the worst cases just to show how bad the Government are. I should like to read something which appeared in the Glasgow Herald today. It is not a statement by a Tory, by Aims of Industry or by the Conservative Central Office. It was made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), who cannot be here because he is speaking to the Scottish district councils. The heading reads as follows:
Rates may rise by 50 per cent. says MP
This is a Tory paper printing a speech made by a Labour Member of Parliament. It is crystal clear that we have a desperate situation.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has come in. It is unfortunate when these savage rate increases are being announced in Scotland that no hon. Member on the Government benches representing a Scottish constituency has taken part in the debate. But I know


that the Secretary of State will be glad to listen to what I have to say and will do what can be done.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross) rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman gives way to the Secretary of State, he must be heard in some degree of silence.

Mr. Ross: I heard every word the hon. Gentleman said. I have been listening to his speech in the corridor. In quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) the hon. Gentleman should have made plain that my hon. Friend was talking about the likely result of the reorganisation of local government that was put through by the Conservatives.

Mr. Taylor: The Secretary of State could not have been listening with care and attention, as he will appreciate if he reads the remarks made by the city treasurer of Glasgow—a Labour Party treasurer—who was talking not about the increases arising from local government reorganisation but about increases which were the direct result of the Labour Government's actions through the Budget and which will be paid by Glasgow ratepayers.
We have put forward a case for income relief. We have done so, first, because there have been massive increases in rates of as much as 100 per cent. We accept that some of those increases are not the responsibility of the Government. Some of them are the direct result of Government action. Secondly, we have an argument in logic. Hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches who said that this was something we would have to live with were the ones who brought forward arguments that because the rents of council house tenants had been increase by £26 a year immediate action should be taken to ensure that the rents were frozen. Surely one cannot say that when people are facing massive rate rises they deserve no help or relief. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU opposed relief before."] We did not.
Thirdly, there is the contribution to the control of inflation which such interim relief would bring. We cannot hope to expect people to exercise restrain in

wages or prices if they face, either in their homes or in industry, unprecedented rate rises.
Fourthly, we have a sound precedent for action being taken by the Conservative Government when unexpected results flowed from revaluation. It would cost money, but, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State admitted that if the Government were to pay half of all the extra rates above a 10 per cent. increase the figure would amount to £100 million, I suggest that this would be a cheap price for Government to pay when apparently they are prepared to spend hundreds of millions on worthless nationalisation of industry and to give £10 million of taxpayers' money as a straight bribe to trade unionists.
At the beginning of the debate the Secretary of State for the Environment gave a jolly, elegant and highly political and amusing speech, which was inappropriate in view of the serious human problem and hardship caused by the alarming, unprecedented, and, indeed, unexpected rises in rates. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would listen to ideas and suggestions. This must surprise some of my hon. Friends, including a former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who were apparently unable to obtain an interview with the right hon. Gentleman. They were not able to put their ideas to the Secretary of State. However, we have given the right hon. Gentleman some ideas tonight. We ask him to accept that a serious and alarming situation exists. Some of these matters are outside his direct control, but others are certainly within his direct control.
We ask the right hon. Gentleman not for sympathy but for action to give interim relief to those who are hardest hit. We ask him to accept that many ratepayers are alarmed by the situation and that there is a militancy which has never existed before. We are traditionally a law-abiding and non-militant nation, and the tragedy is that the present Government who came to power on a pledge to surrender to militancy, have created a situation in which all sections of society believe that only by the exercise of militancy can they get results. It is a disastrous course which is poisoning our society.
In those circumstances I appeal to the Government and to the House to say that


we understand the problems of ratepayers, some of whom are facing staggering rises in rates. We must show them that in this Parliament we have a true understanding of their grievances and that their justified plea will be met by urgent action. If we do not have urgent action by the Government expressed in the Minister's reply tonight, we shall vote for the motion and make clear to the nation that this urgent problem must be urgently dealt with and treated seriously, so that justice may be done to ratepayers.

9.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I have great pleasure in joining in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on a delightful speech. We listened intently to his comments on public participation and public interest. The only regret I had was that he failed to mention that Liverpool had benefited by 6p in the pound because of the changes in rate support grant.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) made a passionate speech. He began with a peroration and seemed to end with a peroration. He conceded that a lower rate existed in Scotland at present, but because of the imminence of reorganisation he said that the rates there were likely to be much higher next year. That perhaps is the best evidence that I can call. Local government reorganisation is a major factor which bedevils the rates that have been levied in the whole of England and Wales.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart did not consult his colleagues who represent English constituencies before he made that statement. I am sure that the attack that he made on the Welsh rating system caused great embarrassment to his right hon. Friend who looks after the interests of Wales on behalf of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). In any event, he does his best.
I thought—and I am being most charitable—that in the course of the examination which the hon. Gentleman made of the inquiry which my right hon. Friend has set up he knocked down the possible alternative sources of finance for local government one after the other. He seemed to be placing his excuses on the

record to justify the inability of the previous administration to do anything about local government finance. Perhaps that was the object of the exercise. He told us that the rates had gone up in some areas by 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. Of course, some of the water rates in the Principality have gone up as a result of the Water Act 1973, which the right hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) supported—

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: Mr. David Gibson-Watt (Hereford) rose—

Mr. Morris: From time to time the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cathcart supported the previous Government and it may well be that he supported the Water Act 1973. I am not sure whether he was in favour or out of favour at the time. In Anglesey there were increases of 400 per cent. as a result of the Water Act which the right hon. Gentleman supported.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall intervene but not interrupt. Water rates may be high in Wales, but, because of the action of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, and because of the low amount of domestic rate support in Herefordshire, the water rates in Hereford are far higher than in the rest of the Wye Valley. That is damnably unfair. What will he do about it?

Mr. Morris: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I and my—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Answer.

Mr. Morris: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not interrupt but intervene. Now let me reply. I have to defend all sorts of things at this Dispatch Box, but one thing that I do not have to defend is the Water Act 1973. The right hon. Gentleman was jointly in charge of that measure, and he knows full well that the present water rating system is the direct result of that iniquitous Act.
Perhaps it will help to lower the temperature a little if we examine with some care the points at issue between the Government and the various motions which have been tabled by the Opposition parties. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has drawn attention to the absence of certain signatories whom we


would have expected to see. For instance, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has been conspicuous by his absence all day. We note that he is not a signatory. In the same way we have listened with interest to the alibi of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I am sure that he is doing well in Committee on the Finance Bill. The reason for their absence is clear. Both right hon. Gentlemen have made it known where they stand.
I remind the House of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said on the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill:
The system of rates, the local authorities' own tax, is well tried, well known and easy and cheap to administer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 35.]
It is no wonder that his name is not among the signatories to the motion.
When that same debate was wound up by the right hon. Member for Crosby, he knocked down the idea that there should be a Royal Commission. I find it odd to read the motion, the first limb of which stresses the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system. This is the cavalier manner in which this idea was thrown out by the official spokesman of the previous administration. He said:
We should only have discussion before the Royal Commission, repeating the discussion on local government finance, which the Government stimulated by issuing that Green Paper; it would be both disastrous and defeatist to put the whole matter back into the melting pot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 148.]
It is no wonder that the Opposition are fielding a new team in seeking to put forward the need in 1974 for a fundamental reform of the rating system.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving us an amusing knock-about speech but I am sure that he realises that for millions of ordinary people and certainly for my constituents this is a matter of deadly seriousness. To many of my constituents it is giving rise to the most acute anxiety. I hope that he will now address himself seriously to the problem and give some reassurance, especially to rural ratepayers, who are desperately anxious about the rate demands that they face.

Mr. Morris: I do not know how long the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) has been listening to the debate. I observe him now for the first time, though perhaps I am being unfair to him. That should go on the record, I think. In any event, if the hon. Gentleman feels so passionate today and intends to join his colleagues in voting for the Opposition motion about the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system, I wonder why he did not do so three or four years ago and why he did not object when on that occasion the right hon. Member for Crosby said that to have a Royal Commission on this matter would be defeatist and disastrous and would put the whole matter back into the melting pot. Is there not humbug and hypocrisy on the part of Opposition supporters?
Let me deal with another limb of this ill-drafted motion. It urges the need to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebates. However, they cannot rank for rate rebates because that part of the rate was taken away from local government in the Water Act introduced by the previous administration. That is why it is not possible to make the rebates which have been prayed in aid as a very important assistance to people who are in difficulties. We are doing the utmost to ensure the greater use, the greater availability, and ensuring that this is brought to the attention of more and more people.

Mr. F. A. Burden: What does that mean?

Mr. Morris: But it must be humbug and hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition now, in 1974, to call for water and sewerage charges to rank for rate rebate. This relief was available until the Act came into being on 1st April, 1974.
Why this conversion, this death-bed conversion on the road to Damascus, whereby the Opposition have seen this shining light? The outside world will know of the humbug and hypocrisy of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: How can someone have a death-bed conversion on the road to Damascus?

Mr. Morris: By means of my somewhat colourful description, I pointed out the idiotic posture of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
It is not a late gesture on our part in setting up a fundamental review. There was no mention of rating reform in the Conservative Party election manifesto; there was not a word about local government finance. Indeed, during the local government debates the Tories resisted any inquiry or examination into local government finance.
The Labour Party made its position clear in its 1973 programme. We have to look afresh at the whole system of rating and of Exchequer grants to local authorities. That is an illustration of the consistency of the approach we are adopting urgently and speedily to try to grapple with an unfair tax, a tax which is based not on ability to pay, not on need, but on the premises one occupies and depends upon the part of the country in which one lives or operates. That has been the general tenor of the debate. Both sides of the House now accept the need for a fundamental inquiry of that kind.
Perhaps it would be of interest if I were to set out some further material regarding the inquiry. Perhaps it would be helpful if at this stage I were to give an indication of what we stress about this inquiry. First, I stress that we are placing no restrictions on the work of the inquiry. It will be open to its members to re-examine any of the suggestions made in the past, to formulate new ones of its own on every aspect of local government finance, or, as has been suggested today, to inquire into practice overseas.
There is one point we do not accept. Perhaps the only major difference between the Liberal Party and the Government is in this respect. The Liberal Party put forward very strongly the need for a Royal Commission. In reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) I would say that we do not accept that the inquiry will suffer any lack of authority through not being dubbed a Royal Commission. When we announce the membership it will be recognised that the committee is well able to stand on its own feet and make its views carry weight.
Furthermore, we do not consider the formal machinery of a Royal Commission and its powers to call for evidence to be either necessary or appropriate in this case. The problem will lie not in gathering evidence but in the sifting of it. There has never been a shortage of advice to

Governments on these matters. During the course of today's debate advice has been freely proffered by organisations and people on all sides. The prime need now is for constructive analysis, not a further agglomeration of material.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I am glad that the Secretary of State agrees on the importance of the inquiry taking account of valuable overseas experience. Does he think that an independent inquiry without Royal Commission status will meet with the same co-operation from foreign countries?

Mr. Morris: In my view and that of my right hon. Friend there will be no difficulty. The need on occasion is for a Royal Commission with powers to summon persons and call evidence, but the lack of those powers will cause no difficulty in this kind of inquiry. There is so much evidence. What is needed now is to sift it, reach conclusions and make recommendations. I anticipate no difficulty on the score the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He and others have spoken about the need for urgency. The charge is often made that a Royal Commission loses not months but years. The kind of inquiry, with the kind of time scale indicated by my right hon. Friend, will report much earlier and be able to bring before the Government the examination which is needed. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend's suggestion will more than meet the case for a fundamental inquiry.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley also suggested that we should negotiate individually with the local authorities instead of consulting the local authority associations. I may have misunderstood him, but I think he will agree that in that extreme form his suggestion would be a recipe for confusion. It is essential for the Government to take the collective views of local government on these matters. We simply cannot have 400 or more separate grant settlements. Besides, there is a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the local authority associations in making the settlement.
However, we fully accept that there is a need for us to have a clear picture in our minds of the problems confronting individual authorities during our discussions with the associations. That is why


my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is visiting a wide range of authorities to talk about the prospects for next year. The hon. Member will recall that he visited the new district of Kirklees, which I understand falls within the hon. Member's constituency.
Many hon. Members have pressed us to take account of income levels in next year's distribution arrangements. It seems to be true that local authority spending per head is artificially depressed in low income areas and unusually high in many areas which have a high level of rateable resources—presumably a reflection of the ability of the local people to pay. We very much hope that in consultation with the local authority associations we can find ways of adjusting the formulae to take account of this.
Hon. Members on both sides have raised the problem of areas with rapidly-growing populations, the new and expanding towns and the need for early and speedy action to help those areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) and a number of other hon. Members raised this matter. A case has been forcibly put here for more help for areas with rapidly-growing populations, particularly those areas with planned overspill development. We are again reviewing the evidence of the effect of population growth on expenditure levels and we are seriously considering the possibility of using more up-to-date data on population and other matters in the rate calculations for 1974–75.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) made a similar point. I understand that there is a particular problem in Knowlsley because there was no former county borough base on which to build. We are discussing with the local authority associations whether there is any way we can reflect in the grant distribution the heavy burden which some new authorities suffered from reorganisation, and we are exploring the possibility of using more up-to-date data on expenditure, popula-

tion and other matters in preparing next year's distribution.
It is obvious to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate that the ratepayers have been taken in as a result of the deception of the Opposition. The Opposition prophesied a maximum 9 per cent. and an average 3 per cent. increase in rates, and now we have had crocodile tears from one end of the Opposition benches to the other because of the staggering increase in rates. The Opposition have misled local authorities regarding inflation. Local authorities were told to plan for a 9 per cent. inflation rate, but it has been running at 15 per cent. and more.
We have inherited an appalling economic situation—

Mr. Carlisle: In the last two minutes at his disposal will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us, instead of what he has been saying, what he will do to help those parts of the country where people are facing increases of 70, 80 and 90 per cent.? Those people cannot understand why a Government who throw money about like confetti are unwilling to do anything about the rates.

Mr. Morris: I would have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be blushing, having been in office for four years and having been party to a rejection of a fundamental review. How dare he stand there, with crocodile tears seeping out of his eyes, over rate increases of 70 or 80 per cent. when he knows, about the cost of local government reorganisation, the appalling mismanagement of his Government and the way they deceived people in their prophecy of the extent of the rate increase? They now seek to put the blame on the Government.
In the last debate on this matter, 80 or more Opposition Members were absent from the Lobbies. No doubt many of them represented areas which have benefited from the Government's proposals. What a change there has been since the last debate. The whole of the responsibility for the present situation lies with the Opposition.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 298.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh


Archer, Peter
Evans, John (Newton)
McElhone, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Ashley, Jack
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert


Atkins, Ronald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Madden, M. O. F.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon


Bates, Alf
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Baxter, William
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bishop, E. S.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Boardman, H.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Graham, Ted
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Milne, Edward


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Molloy, William


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Moonman, Eric


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S.&amp; Sh'dtch)
Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Hattersley, Roy
Murray, Ronald King


Campbell, Ian
Hatton, Frank
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oakes, Gordon


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Carter, Ray
Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John
O'Malley, Brian


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Orbach, Maurice


Clemitson, Ivor
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley


Cocks, Michael
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Dr. David


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Padley, Walter


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, EdgeHill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Parry, Robert


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Jackson, Colin
Pavitt, Laurie


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Cryer, G. R.
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n &amp; F'sb'ry)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Prescott, John


Cunningham, Or. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)
John, Brynmor
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Radice, Giles


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Keiley, Richard
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, William(Teesside, St'ckton)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Doig, Peter
Lomborn, Harry
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Rowlands, Edward


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)
Sandelson, Neville


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Sedgemore, Bryan


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Selby, Harry


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Eadle, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(S'pney &amp; P'plar)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Edge, Geoff
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sillars, James


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, David






Skinner, Dennis
Tierney, Sydney
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Small, William
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Snape, Peter
Torney, Tom
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f' d &amp; St'ge)


Spearing, Nigel
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Spriggs, Leslie
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh' m)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodall, Alec


Stott, Roger
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Woof, Robert


Strang, Gavin
Watkins, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Weitzman, David
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wellbeloved, James



Swain, Thomas
White, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Taverne, Dick
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Michael Cocks and


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitlock, William
Mr. James Hamilton.


Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)






NOES


Adley Robert
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hooson, Emlyn


Aitken, Jonathan
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
Drayson, Burnaby
Howell, David (Guildford)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)


Ancram, M.
Durant, Tony
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Archer, Jeffrey
Dykes, Hugh
Hunt, John


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hurd, Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Baker, Kenneth
Elliott, Sir William
Iremonger, T. L.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Banks, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
James, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp;W'fd)


Beith, A. J.
Farr, John
Jessel, Toby


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Benyon, W.
Fidler, Michael
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jopling, Michael


Biffen, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kershaw, Anthony


Body, Richard
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'Field)
Kilfedder, James A.


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford&amp;Stone)
Kimball, Marcus


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Freud, Clement
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Fry, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bray, Ronald
Gardiner,George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brewis, John
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Knox, David


Brittan, Leon
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Lament, Norman


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gilmour, Rt. Hon. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Lane, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Latham, Arthur (Melton)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Lawrence, Ivan


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodhart, Philip
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
Le Marchant, Spencer


Budgen, Nick
Goodlad, A.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)


Burden, F. A.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Loverldge, John


Carlisle, Mark
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Luce, Richard


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gray, Hamish
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Grieve, Percy
MacArthur, Ian


Channon, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McCrindle, R. A.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macfarlane, Neil


Churchill, W. S.
Grist, Ian
MacGregor, John


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grylis, Michael
McLaren, Martin


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Gurden, Harold
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Cockcroft, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madel, David


Cope, John
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cordle, John
Hannam, John
Marten, Neil


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol


Corrie, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Maude, Angus


Costaln, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Critchley, Julian
Havers, Sir Michael
Mawby, Ray


Crouch, David
Hayh[...]e, Barney
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crowder, F. P.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge Wells)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmld, Maj.-Gen. James
Heseltine, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Higgins, Terence
Mills, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hill, James A.
Miscampbell, Norman


Dixon, Piers
Holland, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)







Moate, Roger
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Money, Ernle
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Norman


Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Geraint
Ridsdale, Julian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn, S.)


Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Townsend, C. D.


Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Trotter, Neville


Mudd, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Neave, Airey
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Tyler, Paul


Neubert, Michael
Royle, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Newton, Tony (Bralntree)
Sainsbury, Tim
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Normanton, Tom
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Viggers, Peter


Nott, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Waddington, David


Onslow, Cranley
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wakeham, John


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shelton, William (L'mb' th, Streath'm)
Walder, David (Clltheroe)


Osborn, John
Shersby, Michael
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Silvester, Fred
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sims, Roger
Wall, Patrick


Pardoe, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Warren, Kenneth


Pattie, Geoffrey
Spence, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Percival, Ian
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)
Wells, John


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pink, R. Bonner
Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stainton, Keith
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stanley, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Steel, David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Raison, Timothy
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Rathbone, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh W.)



Redmond, Robert
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stradling Thomas, John



Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Renton, Rt. Hn. SirDavid (H't'gd'ns're)
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 289.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Adley Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Fidler, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
Channon, Paul
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Ancram, M.
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Archer, Jeffrey
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'Field)


Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Freud, Clement


Baker, Kenneth
Cockcrott, John
Fry, Peter


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Banks, Robert
Cope, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cordle, John
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)


Beith, A. J.
Cormack, Patrick
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David


Bell, Ronald
Corrie, John
Gilmour, Rt. Hon. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)


Bennett, Or. Reginald (Fareham)
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Benyon, W.
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph


Biffen, John
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Blggs-Davison, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Goodhew, Victor


Blaker, Peter
d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Goodlad, A.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Gorst, John


Body, Richard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Dixon, Piers
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemplown)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gray, Hamish


Braine, Sir Bernard
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Grieve, Percy


Bray, Ronald
Drayson, Burnaby
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brewis, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Brittan, Leon
Durant, Tony
Grist, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dykes, Hugh
Grylis, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Gurden, Harold


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, Sir John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Elliott, Sir William
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Buchanan-Smith, Allck
Emery, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Buck, Antony
Eyre, Reginald
Hampson, Dr. Keith


Budgen, Nick
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hannam,John


Bulmer, Esmond
Farr, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Burden, F. A.
Fell, Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy





Hastings, Stephen
Marten, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Havers, Sir Michael
Mather, Carol
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hayhoe, Barney
Maude, Angus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Heseltine, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shersby, Michael


Higgins, Terence
Mayhew,Patrick(RoyalT'bridgeWells)
Silvester, Fred


Hill, James A.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Holland, Philip
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'dltch)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hooson, Emlyn
Mills, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hordern, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Howe,Rt.Hn.Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Money, Ernie
Sproat, Iain


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, John
Morgan, Geraint
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hurd, Douglas
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stanley, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Steel, David


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


James, David
Mudd, David
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh. W.)


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std&amp;W'fd)
Neave, Airey
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Tapsell, Peter


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nott, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Craniey
Tebbit, Norman


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Osborn, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn. S.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kilfedder, James A.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Townsend, C. D.


Kimball, Marcus
Pardoe, John
Trotter. Neville


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tyler, Paul


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Percival, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Knox, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Viggers, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Lane, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wakeham, John


Latham, Arthur (Melton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lawrence, Ivan
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Rathbone, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Redmond, Robert
Walters, Dennis


Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard


Loveridge, John
Renton,Rt.Hn.SirDavid(H't'gd'ns're)
Wells, John


Luce, Richard
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


McCrindle, R. A.
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Macfarlane, Neil
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


MacGregor, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Madel, David
Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sainsbury, Tim





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.


Archer, Peter
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Conlan, Bernard


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne,W.)
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)


Atkins, Ronald
Brown, Ronald (H'kney,S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Crawshaw, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Cronin, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey.WoodGreen)
Cryer, G. R.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Callaghan, Rt.Hn. James (Cardiff.S.E.)
Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n &amp; F'sb'ry)


Bates, Alf
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)


Baxter, William
Campbell, Ian
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Davidson, Arthur


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter, Ray
Davies, Denzil (Llaneill)


Bishop, E. S.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Boardman, H.
Clemitson, Ivor
Deakins, Eric


Booth, Albert
Cocks, Michael
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cohen, Stanley
de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey







Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn E


Dunn, James A.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dunnett, Jack
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, William(Teesside, St'ckton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P' ton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edge, Geoff
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Rowlands, Edward


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sandelson, Neville


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Lee, John
Sedgemore, Bryan


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Selby, Harry


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&amp;P'plar)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Evans, John (Newton)
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hamp'n, N.E.)


Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Flannery, Martin
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sillars, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Small, William


Ford, Ben
McGulre, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spearing, Nigel


Eraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Reginald
Madden, M. O. F.
Stallard, A. W.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Mahon, Simon
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


George, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marquand, David
Strang, Gavin


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Golding, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh,Wch, E)
Swain, Thomas


Graham, Ted
Meacher, Michael
Taverne, Dick


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Mendelson, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside
Mikardo, Ian
Tierney, Sydney


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Tomlinson, John


Hamling, William
Milne, Edward
Torney, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Tuck, Raphael


Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moonman, Eric
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Hatton, Frank
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, David


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Ronald King
Weitzman, David


Horam, John
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Wellbeloved, James


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Oakes, Gordon
White, James


Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Hunter, Adam
Ovenden, John
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; st'ge)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l,EdgeHI)
Owen, Dr. David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jackson, Colin
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Janner, Greville
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham,St'fd)
Perry, Ernest G.
Wrlgglesworth, Ian


John, Brynmor
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prescott, John
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Mr. Laurie Pavit



Price, William (Rugby)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, in view of the massive increases in rates in many areas greatly in excess of the growth of incomes, stresses the need for

a fundamental reform of the rating system; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure of interim relief this year for the benefit of the worst affected and to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebate.

Mrs. Thatcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the decision of the House in favour of the motion, will the Secretary of State undertake to make a statement on what he proposes to do about interim relief for the overburdened ratepayers during the next few days?

Mr. Crosland: I shall take the most careful note of all the points made in this

bizarre debate, in which the Tory Opposition voted against all the policies of the Tory Government. I shall certainly consider the question that the right hon. Lady has raised, as a matter of courtesy to her and to the House, but the final verdict on all this will be given by the electorate, and they will well understand how much cant, humbug and hypocrisy has been spoken today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motions relating to the First, Second and Third Reports from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) may he proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mellish.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That the First, Second and Third Reports of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) be now considered.—[Mr. Bottomley.]

Considered accordingly.

NEW PALACE YARD (LANDSCAPING)

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report.
I should like to draw special attention to certain points.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him. Are the reports being taken separately or together?

Mr. Bottomley: I think that for orderliness it might be preferable to take them separately, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that this time we shall be able to reach a solution. I think that the whole House will agree that it is necessary to clean up New Palace Yard in an appropriate and attractive way without further delay.
When the House last debated the issue it had before it a scheme prepared by the Department of the Environment for paving the yard with a uniform surface of granite setts, and with bollards separating the roadway from the central area. This scheme was recommended to the House by the last Services Committee. I understand that it was favoured by the Department's Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, because it pre

served the historical character of the area as an open yard. For largely the same reasons, it was preferred by the Department's architects and commended by the Royal Fine Art Commission.
It was also felt that visually such treatment would be more in keeping with its surroundings than any alternative involving grass and shrubs or water. I note that the Chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission, in a letter to The Times recently, reiterated this view, which was shared by the Westminster City Council.
However, on 10th December 1973 the House decided that it did not want the yard scheme. Although no clear-cut alternative was suggested, the general view was that a scheme incorporating grass and trees or shrubs would be more acceptable. The Committee has faithfully tried to give effect to that general view in the recommendations contained in the report.
I do not think I shall be betraying any confidence by telling the House that, like the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Department was not very happy about our proposals. It naturally wanted its own scheme. When we first met to discuss the matter it produced a variant for the Committee's consideration. However, it was felt by the Committee that it would have been wrong to come back to the House with something which differed very little from what had already been rejected. For this reason the Committee instructed the Department to prepare the scheme described in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the report. I think that the scheme will add a new dimension to the Yard and will be attractive.
The Department would have reasonable latitude, in consultation with the Services Committee, to carry out the scheme in the most practical way. In our consideration of this matter we have had much help from the Department of the Environment, and I would like to thank all the officials who have given unstintingly of their service and time. I think the Committee would wish me in particular to pay tribute to the work of the principal architect, Mr. Ellis, who produced at short notice various schemes at our specific request. I should also like to pay tribute to the sub-committee and its chairman, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who worked so hard


to produce the report and its recommendations. Another point has been highlighted by the recent bomb attack. We have to ensure that whatever we do is consistent with security requirements and that there is always access for fire engines. The Services Committee will keep this matter under review.
Finally, I should like to strike a note of urgency. The Committee has been conscious of the need to restore the yard with the least possible delay. We have all lived for far too long in this untidy and unavoidable consequence of building the car park. For this reason I hope that the House will give our scheme its wholehearted blessing tonight and enable us to get the job finished as soon as possible.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: On 10th December last, when we debated this matter, I was one of those who opposed the previous propostion. I hope that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) will not think me simply contrary if again I do not express approval of the new scheme.
I do so rather hesitantly because I am conscious that the Services Committee has an immensely difficult task. It has to decide on matters of taste, and that is hard enough for anyone to do. It is even harder for the Committee to obtain the approval of the entire House of Commons on a matter which is basically one of taste.
I can put my objections to the scheme simply. When I objected previously I did so on the ground, primarily, not just that it was an open yard but that it was a useless open yard. I can sympathise with the argument of the Royal Fine Art Commission that it has traditionally been an open yard and should remain so. I did not express a preference for a grass and water scheme. If we are to have such a scheme, the architects have done a very good job and it is an attractive proposal. But I cannot see that a pretty parkland effect is an appropriate feature for the Palace of Westminster. To that extent I go along with the Royal Fine Art Commission. To put a pond in the middle of the attractively landscaped area is inappropriate and a great waste of space.
I know that we are not debating the car parking proposals, but paragraph 3 of the Second Report reads as follows:
One fact stands out clearly. This is that completion of the underground car park will not create a surplus of parking accommodation; on the contrary there will continue to be a shortage.
Is it not extraordinary that we should use this valuable space in the centre of London for nothing, when there is, we are told, a continuing shortage of car parking space?

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that New Palace Yard should revert to being a car park? That is not what he said previously. There will always be a shortage of car parking space.

Mr. Moate: I think I can claim to be consistent. I maintained then, and have always maintained, that car parking in New Palace Yard is part of the Westminster scene. Complete elimination of cars from the site would give a dead impression. It is a matter of taste. I have nothing against orderly car parking on the site. I see that as part of the Westminster scene. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members clearly disagree, but that is a legitimate viewpoint. It would make far more sense, economically speaking, to use that space.
The cost of the new car park is £2½-million approximately. It accommodates 500 cars, which means that the cost of one place is £5,000. If 200 cars were parked on the surface the space would be worth £1 million. The pond will cost the ratepayers £1 million. If there will still be a shortage of car parking space, I argue that it is a misuse of that space to put it down to what is by general account inappropriate parkland.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, for the same reason, we should convert the garden in the middle of Parliament Square into a car park?

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman is being illogical. We are talking about the yard of the Palace of Westminster, which is a traditional historical setting and has always been an open yard. The Royal Fine Art Commission argued that it


should be an open yard. As an open yard we should use it for a useful purpose. I argue that economically, and to an extent in historical and aesthetic terms, to keep it for car parking is a practical proposition, certainly in the interim period until another purpose can be found. I say, reluctantly, that it would make much more sense to think again. We could put down a temporary surface until we know exactly what we want to use the space for. For those reasons I hope that the Committee may find a reason for reconsidering this proposition.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I suppose I should be out of order if I argued the merits of the car park, to which I have always been opposed. At a time when we are trying to discourage car owners from driving their cars into central London, it is fantastic that we should embark upon the expenditure of millions of pounds to make it easier for cars to come into the Palace of Westminster.
I must concentrate upon the issue before us, which is the use to which New Palace Yard will be put.
The House is taking on itself a serious responsibility in completely disregarding the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission. That commission is a body of responsible people, and I should be surprised if in the course of this debate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who is representing the Conservative Opposition, says that the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission should be disregarded. However, that is what we appear to be doing.
I must confess that I am a traditionalist. New Palace Yard is a yard. Why should we start messing about having a bit of grass, water in the middle, and that sort of thing in what historically is a yard? If I may paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "A yard is a yard is a yard …". We do not want to mess about with it. It would be more appropriate if we forgot all about a lawn, and a pool and these extravagances which will add to the cost of the project, and allowed the granite setts to be installed so that we shall continue to have New Palace Yard as a yard not some other fancy extravagancies thought up by the Services Committee.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) will be persuaded to think again. We are old friends and I do not want to start quarrelling with him at my time of life, and indeed at his time of life. I ask him to think again and not force the House into a decision on what should appear on the surface of New Palace Yard.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I did not have the privilege of serving in the last Parliament. Therefore, although I read with interest the previous debate, I had no opportunity to take part in it.
I am pleased this evening to see many of the Members who were present on that occasion here in the Chamber tonight. However, there are two notable absentees. One is the former right hon. Member for Sowerby, who is now Lord Houghton, who, I think, was then Father of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"]. I beg the pardon of the House. He was certainly a distinguished and long-serving Member of the House, and I shall quote his views in a moment.
The other absentee is the former Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, Mr. Sydney Chapman, who is an architect and planner, and who, I believe, was the only Member in the House at that time who had any professional qualification to judge the issue.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman advancing the case that an architect necessarily has some sort of taste? Can he really make such a statement when he looks around at some of the monstrous abortions which architects have inflicted on the country?

Mr. Tyler: I am not an architect, but as a layman I take an interest in architectural matters. Having worked with architects for some years, I think their voice is at least worth hearing.
I was depressed to hear the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) claim urgency as the reason for the choice made by the Services Committee. As I recall from reading the debate in Hansard, the same argument was then adduced for having a late-night debate on the car park. It was urged that something had to be done quickly—and, in my view, the wrong decision was taken.


I hope that no hon. Member will feel tonight that he cannot vote against the recommendations of the Services Committee because the right hon. Gentleman says that the matter is urgent. What is more important is to get the right thing done.
There was throughout the debate on 10th December a general conviction that New Palace Yard should be used. It came out in many speeches, including those of Mr. Houghton, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who has spoken tonight in the same terms.
It is important to ensure that New Palace Yard does not become a dead place when looked at from outside. It is not a dead place but part of the environs of the Palace of Westminster, which I regard as a place of work and not just as a backcloth for tourists to look at, or a quiet idyllic scene for people to walk round in and enjoy themselves.
I draw attention to the picture in the report. I am sorry hat it will not appear in HANSARD, because the point may not be apparent to people reading the debate without it. The picture is significant, and the most significant thing of all is that if one looks closely one can find only two people in the Yard.

Mr. Ben Ford: They are all under the trees.

Mr. Tyler: One can find a few cars in the picture, but the most important thing about it and the proposal that it represents is that it is dead. It has nothing to do with the working institution of democracy. It is a dead picture of a tourist scene. It may be that the artist drew the picture during the Summer Recess; if so, he misunderstood what this place is about. We are considering an integral part of the centre of British democracy. I do not think that a nice little row of trees round a croquet lawn with something like a municipal bandstand in the middle is appropriate.

Mr. Lipton: The hon. Gentleman will notice that the cars are stationary.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent point, as only he can, in his inimitable way. Mr. Douglas Houghton on 10th December said:

… New Palace Yard has been a courtyard since records were kept of the environs of this palace.
That point has been repeated tonight. The hon. Member for Faversham said that it must be
… functional, recognising the economic value of the site and its important position. … I believe that the site will be left sterile, dead and nattractive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December 1973; Vol 866, cc. 109 and 112–13.]
The hon. Gentleman's fears have materialised in the picture. The hon. Member for Derby, North said, rightly, that it would be quite wrong for the yard to be considered as merely a tourist attraction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) adduced the argument in that debate that during the recess the yard should have a function. He suggested it as a suitable venue for a son et lumière. Certainly one of the most effective ways of explaining what a building is about today is to explain its history.

Mr. Michael English: Would the hon. Gentleman make a simple point? Was it proposed that the son et lumière should be profit-making?

Mr. Tyler: I do not recall whether my hon. Friend had views on whether it should be profit-making or not, and I do not have strong views about it.

Mr. English: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) wanted it to make a profit.

Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend wanted the yard used. I have not discovered whether he wanted to make a profit. But, if there was a profit and that profit was used to provide better facilities for Members—

Mr. English: That is not his proposal.

Mr. Tyler: This is not a party point

Mr. English: A personal point.

Mr. Tyler: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a personal point about non-profit-making son et luèiere, I have no doubt that he will seek an opportunity in the course of the debate.
I have said already that I believe that this proposal will sterilise New Palace


Yard. There are many uses to which it should be put. The one which I find most objectionable is that it should become a quiet shady garden for tourists, which appears to be the proposal before us.

Mr. Whitehead: How does the hon. Gentleman know, even with his keen eyesight, that the two people whom he has discerned in the picture are actually tourists?

Mr. Tyler: The cars appear to be far too big to be afforded by hon. Members. That is why I suggest that they may be tourists.
I turn to the uses to which the yard should, could and always has been put. It has been part of the Palace of Westminster. It has been the normal arriving point since the palace was rebuilt after the fire in the 1830s, the place to which carriages and subsequently cars have come, parked for short periods, and gone again. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of this House to impose short-term parking restrictions upon those hon. Members—even some Government supporters—who find that they come in for a short period in the evening to exercise their democratic right at 10 o'clock and then depart again.
It is very important that New Palace Yard should be a centre of bustle and activity. It is wrong for it to be treated as a monastic garden with the sweet sounds of birds and bees. Moreover, it is totally misconceived to imagine that any water in the centre of London will remain respectable for any length of time. Even in the Palace of Westminster, water does not remain pure and attractive to look at. In a very short space of time it will look, as most municipal ponds in London and elsewhere look, squalid.
We should be seeking informality to set off the formality of the yard. Anyone with experience of architectural or landscaping matters will appreciate that the formality of the ring of trees shown in the picture will not provide a foil for the background of historic buildings. We require small groups of trees to disguise any short-term car parking which may occur and to give a real sense of a rectangle to the area surrounding it.
The proposal before us would be very attractive in a municipal beer garden

somewhere in the South of England. It is inappropriate to the historic environment of the Palace of Westminster. I hope very much that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in the Division Lobby when I divide the House against this proposal.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) wants. I am clear about what he does not want. He does not want the scheme that is before us now. He wants something lively, active and, it seems to me, messy which is difficult to judge without knowing in more detail what he has in mind.
I rarely disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley). In fact, this is the first time that I have done so for many years. But I disagree with him about the merits of the scheme that he has presented.
In this important setting, what is wanted is something simple, grand and dignified. Nothing else will set off the very fine architecture of Westminster Hall and Parliament which surrounds it. Any erection in New Palace Yard, including a circle of trees or whatever it may be, is a mistake.
The proposal to place granite setts, and nothing else, in New Palace Yard was proposed by people whose advice we do not necessarily always follow but to which we must listen. The Royal Fine Art Commission, the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, Westminster City Council, the architects attached to the Department of the Environment—all important people with considerable knowledge of these matters—gave their advice. Their advice was unanimous and correct. It was accepted by this House in July 1973.
When the Department presented a scheme in December last year to carry out those proposals, for a variety of reasons the House rejected it by a very small majority, by 42 votes to 35. Anyone reading the report of that debate can see, from the way it ranged over a huge number of proposals, that it was a messy debate. Having read it, it seems to me that many people voted against the scheme more from resentment of the fact there was going to be a very expensive car park under New Palace Yard than for any other reason. There was general


criticism of the Department of the Environment for putting a car park there costing millions of pounds. The proposal was debated late at night, and that sort of feeling was evident throughout the debate. I believe it was partly for that reason that the proposal was turned down by 42 votes to 35.
I agree that the Department was in a difficulty. It had to produce another scheme. It has produced this scheme, which is an abomination. Just because a scheme which had been agreed to by all the authorities was turned down by the last Parliament by a small majority, I do not know why a new Parliament might not consider the scheme afresh. That is what I hope the House will do.

Mr. Moate: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the same principle—which I agree with—should be applied to the new Parliament building?

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that is a relevant comment.
I want the principle that was applied to the Great Court of Trinity, which is the best comparison, to be applied to this important setting. a simple fine layout with nothing on it except granite or grass.
The only way I am prepared to depart from the recommendations of the Royal Fine Art Commission is to suggest that instead of having granite setts over the whole area there should be grass. I think that might be an improvement. What is needed is something simple, not an oblong space in the centre of New Palace Yard surrounded by a line of pleached lime trees, which have nothing to do with the setting. It detracts from the simplicity of the place. It means nothing. Is it expected that hon. Members will walk round these trees in the summer? I do not know.
Presumably the public will not be allowed into New Palace Yard. It is desirable that there should be—indeed, there are now—large numbers of seats for the public in Parliament Square from which they can see the House of Commons and Westminster Abbey.
I do not know the purpose of having this line of trees. Anyone looking at this picture must agree that it detracts

from the simplicity and grandeur of the place and is wrong.
I regret that the proposal before us is not a wise one. It is not put forward with any conviction. It is put forward in spite of the recommendation of the authorities, which we should consider although not necessarily accept. It has been put forward because the Department did not know what else to do.
The proposal of the Royal Fine Art Commission and the other experts was put before the House and defeated by a small majority during the last Parliament. Therefore, they hesitate to put forward that or a similar scheme to this Parliament. That is wrong. I hope that the House will turn down this scheme. New Palace Yard could be as magnificent a setting as the Great Court of Trinity.
I will therefore reject my right hon. Friend's advice, although this is the first time that I have disagreed with him. The Services Committee should consider the matter afresh, and try to come up with a simpler scheme more appropriate for this important part of Westminster.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I declare an interest as a member of the Services Committee.
I am finding this debate increasingly odd. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), said that, because the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission, the City of Westminster and the Department of the Environment was turned down by the last Parliament by a small majority, the new Parliament should have been able to consider it again. He is saying that the new Services Committee should have listened to that rejected advice and not had a mind of its own. No Services Committee worth its salt should do that.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) voted against the new parliamentary building on 25th June 1973, although it was recommended by the Royal Fine Art Commission. Because the commission does not recommend this scheme, he says that we should now follow its advice. He is a trifle inconsistent.
The House is being put in an impossible position. It will soon find no hon. Members willing to sit on the Services


Committee if it always turns down the Committee's views without suggesting any constructive alternatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), in an unholy alliance, will be in the same Lobby as the Father of the House tonight, although what he wants to see is cars all across New Palace Yard because they have always been there. Old pictures do not show masses of carriages in the yard. As the Chairman of the Services Committee said, these days we must take account of security considerations. If the yard is covered with untidy motor vehicles, it will be increasingly difficult for fire vehicles to get through. My hon. Friend must be realistic, and not always put that sort of view, which does not take us any further forward.
The House should accept that this scheme is practical. No scheme could suit everyone, but it has been carefully thought out and accepted by the Committee, with or without expert advice. I do not believe in always accepting expert advice. Some of it is trashy. If we do not accept the scheme, the House will be committing itself to spending a considerable sum of taxpayers' money on temporary paving of New Palace Yard. That money will be slung away because some hon. Members are not prepared to accept that it is a practical scheme.
I believe that this is a practical scheme. The Services Committee would be dishonest if it came forward again with the scheme which was turned down last time. The House would be well advised to accept the scheme put forward by the Chairman of the Services Committee.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: Like the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), I am now a member of the Services Committee, and I have certain sympathy with the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), upon whom the fickle finger of fate has settled tonight in making him reply to the debate, in which the House appears—or some hon. Members appear—to be taking a totally contrary view to the one vehemently expressed in the debate less than a year ago. There was absolutely no doubt last time, small majority or not in percentage terms—few hon. Members stayed until that hour—[Interruption.] It was a late debate. I realise that hon. Gentle

men on the Liberal benches know little about Divisions and are rarely here for them. I shall in a moment deal with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) and his proposals, ludicrous though they were.
When the Division took place after the last debate, the hon. Members who were whipping at that time asked us, with their usual monosyllabic eloquence: "Are you for grass or cobbles?" That was the way the House divided. To put it no higher, those hon. Members who threw out the previous proposals were for grass in the courtyard, as tastefully arranged as it could be, and they were against Portuguese cobble stones which were to be imported at great expense to provide the paving setts recommended by the Services Committee.
Not all the suggestions in the new proposals are exactly what I would like, or what some other critics would like. I appreciate some of the objections which the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), raised about trees. That may be a matter of detailed argument which we could take note of or resolve.
The central issue is what we do with New Palace Yard—whether we keep it open, or put it to some new, more attractive use. I am convinced that the Services Committee's proposals offer something which the majority of the House ought to be able to accept—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Services Committee has ascertained if the trees can root in the position proposed? If we were instead to agree to have paving in New Palace Yard it would mean we could keep our options open, and the point about the proper rooting of the trees—the planting of which would cost a lot of money—could be properly looked into.

Mr. Whitehead: There is a difficulty concerned not merely with the inital rooting of the trees but with other things which would have to remain in the courtyard. The hon. Member for Bristol, West will be able to deal with this in detail in replying to the debate. There is an issue not so much about the additional catalpa trees to be put around the site but about the lime trees in the centre. There has been almost everything in New


Palace Yard in its time. One of the reasons why I jocularly suggested a tennis court when the matter was previously debated was that we know from the discovery of tennis balls in the rafters of Westminster Hall that tennis was played in the precincts of the palace for a long period before those who govern our affairs decided in their wisdom that such recreation should not be allowed here.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Member made the point in the previous debate that New Palace Yard should be put to some use. He has not yet explained what use is to be made of the curious bowling green. Is he proposing that hon. Members play croquet on it?

Mr. Whitehead: I keep telling the hon. Member for Bodmin, whom I have known for many years and for whom I have a high regard, that I will come on to his remarks. I hope that he will contain himself until I reach that happy position.
Recreation is itself a use, and recreation within New Palace Yard would be better suited under these proposals than under anything we have heard by way of an alternative from the critics. Recreation is an essential in the crowded, dense urban environment into which some people, like the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), wish to bring more and more motor cars. During the previous debate—the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time—no one suggested that we should make New Palace Yard the same grubby car park as before.

Mr. Moate: No.

Mr. Whitehead: If the hon. Gentleman did, I think he was the only hon. Member to do so. I hope that the position will be the same tonight. When we consider the few open spaces that are left in central London, to suggest that we should measure out space here in terms of the going rate per footage of motor car and consider those spaces in terms of the market price for parking spaces is a ludicrous suggestion in relation to this historic site. It has seen many uses in the past and no doubt there will be more in future.
The hon. Member for Bodmin, in the major statement of Liberal policy which we heard tonight, wanted the yard to be

less sterile. I am sometimes called the father of vasectomy of the House, and I am able to judge as well as anyone else when something is sterilised. I do not believe that New Palace Yard, as the proposals suggest, will be a more and place or a more and environment because there are no people conspicuously working in it. Does the hon. Gentleman want to take his desk out into the yard and dictate to his secretary and become an additional tourist attraction? New Palace Yard, since the advent of the motor car, has been a fume-ridden enclave into which cars have come and gone, and all too often they have been parked in it for far too long. That at least is eliminated under the proposals before us, because there will be little room for motor cars to be parked.
I do not think that we should surrender at this late stage to the motor car. I do not think that we should return to the paved setts from Portugal, although Portugal is not in such a bad odour on these benches as it was a few months ago. I hope that the majority tonight, bearing in mind the hard work put in by the hon. Member for Bristol, West and his advisers to whom I pay tribute, will settle in the Division, as it did last time, for grass and not for cobbles.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) told us that we should disregard the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission and act on our own belief. I suggest that before we consider that proposition we should look at some of the things of which the commission has approved—for example, the Queen Anne's Mansions, the Knightsbridge Barracks Tower and the New Parliamentary Building. I do not think that the commission can be judged as the supreme arbiter of taste.

Mr. Ernie Money: My hon. Friend has missed out the most important example of the lot—namely, the Department of the Environment itself.

Mr. Allason: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central also said that hon. Members should set a good example to Londoners as we tell them not to bring their cars into the centre of London and


park. There are spaces for 220 cars in New Palace Yard, but under this scheme they will not be parking in the yard but elsewhere. We shall later be discussing other places for parking, but under this scheme cars will not be parking on the surface. That will set a good example to Londoners. We shall be hiding our cars away underground. We work after midnight, after public transport has stopped, and, therefore, we need to have our cars here. That is not generally understood by the public.

Mr. Lipton: Does the hon. Gentleman think that when a Division is called at 10 o'clock and cars pour into the yard, they will all park underground and that cars will not be left on the surface to enable hon. Members to nip in the Lobby? That is just not on.

Mr. Allason: I do not think that 10 o'clock at night is the time when workaday Londoners are watching what we are up to.
We have the choice of the open scheme—simple, grand, and dignified—which will be a view of either 220 cars, the mess that is left by them and those ugly ramps that we are compelled to have into the building, or a bit of camouflage for those ramps.
The pride of New Palace Yard is not that it is open but that we have our curtain of trees. It will not be a matter of regret for me if we have more trees in New Palace Yard. In the middle we could have a fountain or, if the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) has his way, a beehive. I should prefer a reproduction of the old Tudor fountain. I am attracted to that for sentimental and historic reasons. On the other hand, it would be quite reasonable not to have it, because it is not an essential part of the scheme. On the whole, I believe that this scheme is a great improvement on the previous one.

11.17 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I should like to associate myself with the expressions of appreciation voiced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) about the work of the Services Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), and the officials of the

Department of the Environment, particularly Mr. Ellis and Mr. Mackenzie, regarding this scheme.
It is no secret that my Department would prefer to preserve the historic character of New Palace Yard. It is perhaps sufficient to say that, without accepting that the Royal Fine Art Commission is the final arbiter in taste in these matters, we are inclined to agree with its view that the paved area scheme would have been best and feel that it is a pity that the House did not see fit to accept the original recommendation of the Services Committee. But I accept that this matter was, and is, one for the House, and my Department will do all that it can to comply with the decision of the House.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that, in the light of the vote on 10th December 1973, his Committee could scarcely have come back with a mere variant of the scheme. I congratulate both him and the Committee on what is an ingenious and, if the illustration is any guide, attractive solution to the problem.
I do not accept that the scheme produces what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) described as a sterile, dead, and unattractive feature for the setting of the Palace of Westminster. I was fascinated when the hon. Gentleman discerned two figures on the illustration. I should perhaps disclose that they were two worried, anxious, frustrated officials from the Department of the Environment suffering from a surfeit of good advice and a multiplicity of views from Members of this House on a scheme for New Palace Yard.
I accept that there are problems over certain details of the scheme, and I gladly accept the offer of consultation made by my right hon. Friend on the best way of solving them. As at present advised, I do not think it is impossible to implement the proposed garden scheme, but my officials will wish to examine the practical implications rather more fully. That is important if we are to secure uniform growth of the lime trees which were described in such disparaging terms by one of my right hon. Friends. It is suggested that there might be difficulty in growing these trees to a uniform height. If those difficulties subsequently prove insuperable we should like to have the


opportunity of proposing alternatives to the Services Committee. This is, however, a matter of detail, and I agree that if the Committee and the House concur there should be no need to make further reference to the House.
We should also have regard to the security aspects in working out the details of the scheme. Access for emergency services such as fire engines and ambulances is particularly important, especially in view of the recent terrorist bombing incident which affected Westminster Hall, access to which was needed through New Palace Yard. There has to be access for the fire appliances, ladders and all other kinds of fire-fighting equipment, and we must bear in mind that if a bomb can burst a gas main, as it did in the recent regrettable incident, it may do the same to a water main. Accordingly, we must be prepared for all eventualities and ensure that the roadway is adequate to cope with them.
My right hon. Friend mentioned cost and time. The latest estimate of cost for the garden scheme, including what has been described as a pond, is in the range of £140,000 to £175,000. That compares with £180,000 for the paved area scheme. We had originally believed that this could have been accommodated within the £2,500,000 provided for the car park as a whole. Unfortunately, the general escalation of building costs now rules that out. As the House knows, there have been delays during the construction of the car park, most particularly to enable important archaeological research to take place. There have been other minor modifications which should add to the cost of the main contract, and it now seems, inevitably, that some additional provision may be required. It is far too early at this stage to be specific on the figures, and I have every reason to hope that in the context of about £2,500,000 it will eventually prove to be a marginal amount. In any case we shall have an opportunity to review the matter later in the year when we consider the cost of repairing the recent bomb damage.
The other point concerned time. As my right hon. Friend said, this is primarily the Committee's scheme, and its implications will have to be worked out in detail by the Department. The actual

planning should not take long, and we shall do all we can to carry out the work as quickly as possible. There is the problem of long delivery dates for slate and granite, but we should be able to do a fair amount of preparatory work and tidying up during the recess, and, while I can give no assurances about dates now, the House has my assurance that we shall do our best to complete the whole job with the minimum of delay.
I want to end briefly by dealing with the Second Report of Services Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I assume, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are taking the orders together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): They are being taken separately.

Mr. Morris: In those circumstances I conclude by commenting on the point made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) when he suggested using the surface of New Palace Yard for providing additional car parking places. There is a practical difficulty in this regard. I am advised that the air vents from the underground car park would make it difficult and undesirable to park cars on the surface. It would mean that fewer could be parked than had been parked there previously.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I do not think that anyone will disagree about the value of the project, but it is difficult for people who work in the House—not only Members—to find accommodation. If the vents could be covered, additional car parking space could be provided temporarily, until we have sufficient accommodation for hon. Members and those who work in the House.

Mr. Morris: I appreciate the difficulty of providing adequate car parking space for Members and staff who are obliged to attend the House over a period of 24 hours every day, but one must recognise the extent of the expenditure involved in providing such additional facilities.

Sir Anthony Royle: Why cannot the hon. Gentleman arrange with his Department to put a stronger surface on the vents to enable cars to be parked there, at least in emergencies?


What would be the cost? Is it not possible?

Mr. Morris: I do not have this information available. Vents imply access to air. Strengthening them with additional concrete would inhibit the development of any scheme for enhancing New Palace Yard.
There have been a variety of views on whether we should have opted for the paved area scheme recommended previously. We now have before us proposals of the Services Committee for what has been described as a garden scheme. The issue has been under consideration for three years. Expenditure in providing the underground car park involves £2½ million. I have reservations about some features of the garden scheme, but we have an obligation to the taxpayers. Today is the day of decision for the House. It should face up to its obligations in this regard.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Ernie Money: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who made a remarkably sensible speech, I find much of the debate totally mystifying. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to make bravado interventions from a sedentary position.
Two points go to the root of the problem. First, there is the mind-boggling suggestion by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler). The use of the New Palace Yard for son et lumière seems to entail that in any circumstances there would have to be an audience to watch the lumière and listen to son. If the hon. Gentleman has attended son et lumières, he may know that it is almost impossible to enjoy either with the amount of noise that there is now in Parliament Square and the Bridge Street area.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: That would provide the son.

Mr. Money: Of a sort.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bodmin will find an audience for son et lumière in those circumstances, and at the sort of hour that is likely.
What is much more important is what has just fallen from the Minister, that we

have lived with the scheme for far too long. We have to come to a solution soon. This scheme is basically civilised within its terms. It is basically far cheaper, and, considering some of the difficulties that this Parliament has, it might be as well not to have too many paving stones around.
I warmly welcome what the Services Committee has put forward, on the basis that at long last something is being done with an area that is rapidly degenerating into a slum. The sooner something is done with it, the sooner we can get on with the primary purpose for which the House is here, rather than have so much of the House taken up by the individual views of every Member.
It is sometimes said that Israel is a country with just over 3 million people and just over 3 million political parties. In the House, it is obvious that every Member will have his own views. This scheme will not only meet the duty to serve the public but will provide something that will not be objectionable to the majority view of taste and, therefore, it is to be welcomed.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am in a similar position to the Father of the House the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I hardly ever disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), just as the right hon. Gentleman hardly ever disagrees with his right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) but I disagree with what my hon. Friend said this evening.
It is rather unfortunate that anyone should try to stampede the House into taking a decision. It may be that this has been going on for years, but the car park has been under construction, and we are to determine what, for the foreseeable future, will be New Palace Yard. It will be a complete change from anything that we have known before, and we must make the right decision. We and successive generations have to live with it, and if we take extra time to make a decision, so what?
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall was right when he talked about a certain guilt complex about the car park. There was such a guilt complex, and I still share


it. I may be ruled out of order for saying so, but I still wonder whether these five storeys could not be put to better purpose than for the parking of cars.
I advanced that theory during the last debate on this subject and I am being consistent. If we are to have it as a car park, and if it cannot be used for other purposes, so be it. I raised this matter last time and the Minister said that he would investigate it, but I have never had a reply. I do not know whether a reply was ever given to anybody. One knows that in Congress there is an underground swimming pool, and so on. A swimming pool here might keep Members fitter and be a better use of the space.
But accepting that we shall have this area as a car park, it seems to me that the Father of the House said some sensible things. This is an extremely bitty scheme. Those of us who voted against the granite setts because we thought that they were austere and would not give the area the new character that we wanted to see had in mind a sort of Trinity Court, with an area of grass and a focal point in the middle. I even suggested a statue of Cromwell as being appropriate. There is one skulking around outside. There could be either a statute or a fountain as a focal point—it does not matter which, but I should favour a statue because it would be cheaper—with grass around and granite setts on the outside. That would be a delightful and pleasing prospect for many people.
Nobody likes trees more than I do, but to have these arboreal units of uniform size would not produce what we want. It is no wonder that the hon. Member is known as the Minister for urban affairs, when he talks about trees in this way. Such a scheme would produce a bitty effect.
I suggest that the Services Committee be instructed to think again, to take away these trees. After all, the Services Committee is there to serve this House. We all appreciate the hard work that it has done, but if the House as a whole feels unable to accept its recommendations there is nothing particularly petulant or undemocratic in that. We are entitled to say that to the Committee. I should like

the Services Committee to take the scheme away and take away the trees. The Trinity Court concept would meet the requirements of most people.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I think I can legitimately claim that when I vote against the motion I shall be consistent, in that I voted for the Services Committee on the last occasion, but I recollect that the opponents, who then won, did not actually ask for trees. I shall join the opponents tonight, not because I particularly believe in their argument, but because I believed the argument of the Services Committee last time.
I should like to mention something a little more serious. The repute of the Services Committee and of the House has declined over the period the Committee has existed. It was once chaired by the Leader of the House. I mean no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) when I say that he is not the Leader of the House. The Committee used to have both Chief Whips on it. Now it has both Deputy Chief Whips. I could go on in detail, but I do not wish to do so. It is the case that the repute of the Services Committee has declined.
The Committee does not indulge sufficiently in consulting hon. Members before it reaches its decisions. In respect of its recommendations regarding car parking I see no reason why the Committee could not have sent out a simple questionnaire to hon. Members asking "What would you like to be done about New Palace Yard?" before we had a debate.
We are using sledgehammers to crack nuts. We have had two debates on this issue. It would not surprise me if both debates ended with defeats for the Services Committee. The first one ended that way. The Services Committee may win tonight, but it sounds as if it will lose. Is there any reason why the Services Committee, which is supposed to represent hon. Members, should not consult hon. Members about what it is doing?
The Services Committee meets in relative privacy, if not in total secrecy. I know that hon. Members have a right to attend and listen to the proceedings of


the Committee, if they wish to, but most hon. Members do not do so. The Committee is usually defeated in the House. It used once to win.
I do not wish to delay the House at this hour. I merely suggest that in future, before the Services Committee arrives at a decision, it might conceivably send out 635 letters privately to hon. Members saying "What is your view?". It should ask after the fashion of a Gallup poll, what their opinions are and receive their opinions back. Then perhaps the Committee would arrive at a decision which would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of hon. Members.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Many of the speeches which have been made in this debate have been answered by other speeches. I will try briefly, in winding up, to cover the other points.
The Services Committee is the servant of the House. We recognise our obligation to the House. I think that every member of the Committee does his best to be in contact with as many Members as possible. Indeed, in the special context of the Services Committee, although there are various rules of privilege applicable to Select Committees, they are loosely applied in this context, for the Services Committee is there to carry out the wishes of the House. I have never noticed hon. Members being slow to tell me about what they think we should do or what they wish us to do.
The House rejected our previous report. In that debate we were asked to think again. We could not return to the House without making a real attempt to incorporate into a new scheme all the eminently helpful and worthwhile suggestions which Members of the House made, both in that debate and outside it.
The House has asked us for trees, for grass, for water, and for a design complimentary to the historic stone buildings and various dates and styles which surround New Palace Yard. The scheme outlined in our new report, which incorporates all that was asked for, will, we believe, turn New Palace Yard from a dusty desert cluttered with vehicles into a place of some tranquillity, which is surely no bad thing as the pounding traffic passes two sides of it.
There were questions about points of detail. I know that the House wants to come to a decision so I will not go into too much detail. The scheme is not perhaps well presented in the sketch. Sketches can never do everything. I am sorry that the cars are not moving for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler). We cannot ask the Stationery Office to produce a coloured film strip of everything we want to show the House.
The centre embodies materials from practically every corner of the United Kingdom—Westmorland slate, Portland stone from Dorset, granite from Scotland. My Ulster Unionist Friends this morning told me that they could supply some Ulster granite from the Mourne Mountains. There is no reason why for historic reasons a great many parts of the United Kingdom should not help in doing this job in New Palace Yard.
We are adding to the catalpa trees. Those sacred trees have been very much part of the scene for more than a century. We are keeping to a minimum the stone paved area. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) is pleased about that. I am grateful for his support this evening during his first appearance as spokesman for the arts in the Conservative Party.
The stone paved areas will be far more pleasing than the dirty tarmac already referred to. We have contrived a central area embodying a carpet of green in contrast to such stone as is necessary. The historic site of the Tudor fountain is to be marked by a simple pool of the same dimensions.
Perhaps I should explain that what is shown in the sketch is a hexagonal reconstruction of the octangular medieval fountain found by archeologists below the Tudor fountain. It would have cost about £50,000 to reconstruct that, and it was questionable whether it was desirable, anyway. I can assure the House that the remains of the fountains found in the excavations have been carefully preserved and will be able to be put on view in some appropriate place. Members may like to suggest where.
The central area is shown in the sketch as being surrounded by a double line of lime trees, formally trained to provide a shaded walk and capable of hiding the ramps of the car park by lateral growth


—from their stems along that stretch of the footpath only. One will not be able to see the hideous ramps to the car park and the walls that contain them. As one steps out of the great doors of Westminster Hall one will see merely a green area. There are ample precedents for such a feature in such a setting.
In Europe such things are extensively used, and when well cared for, as we can be sure ours will be by the Bailiff of the Royal Parks, they are a perfect complement to fine architecture. This is possible—

Mr. Spearing: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the trees, could he deal with the point I raised? What steps has the Services Committee taken to ascertain whether these trees in this position can take root and continue to flourish if the House decided to accept the recommendation of the Committee?

Mr. Cooke: I knew I should not have given way, not because I do not wish to answer the question but because I am coming to it. All this is possible and, if the House approves, could be a living reality by next summer.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked about the trees. The House will know that New Palace Yard is far from level. There are parts of the central area which have differing depths of soil. The part nearest to the colonnade would be a problem if the central area were to follow the contour of the yard. In other words, if the path round the trees were to follow the contour of the yard it would be askew. If the central area is to be laid out more or less level, or appearing level to the eye, which is what a landscape gardener would do, there will be ample depth of soil for the trees all round the central area. I do not think I am disclosing any confidence when I say that I have had expert advice to the effect that provided that the central area is treated that way the trees will grow perfectly well and can be properly maintained.
I come to the problems of the central area. This will help the House consider.

ably. Following the recent bomb and the fire in the area adjoining Westminster Hall, which happened after our report was published, we are advised that we should look most carefully to ensure that nothing we propose will impede the fire services and their appliances. We there-fore propose forthwith to take evidence from those best able to advise us and act accordingly, keeping the House informed. We do not believe that any major departure from our proposed scheme will be necessary, and I ask the House to approve it with this one proviso.

The House was clear on the previous occasion that it did not want a bare yard, and we believe that we are faithfully carrying out its instructions. Time is running on, and we are faced with the stark alternative of a temporary covering of tarmac, which, alas, can well be all too permanent and costly to change, or an imaginative scheme which will be a welcome addition to historic Westminster.

I commend the scheme to the House, and I would attempt to persuade those hon. Members who said that it was their intention to divide the House to think again and to approve the report in principle. I have made a proviso about the trees, which seem to be a problem in some people's minds, but let us get on with the job.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend says that the trees can be looked at again. Does that mean that it is possible that he will accede to the suggestion made by the Father of the House and supported by some of us that the trees should go?

Mr. Cooke: No. I am asking the House to approve the principle. What I said about the trees was that in the light of the necessity of providing access for fire appliances, the question whether all the trees are possible must be looked into. It is the view of the Committee that it has carried out the instructions of the House in providing trees round the central area, and we stick to our proposal.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 31.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[11.47 p.m.


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bates, Alf
Carter, Ray


Ancram, M.
Boardman, H.
Cocks, Michael


Banks, Robert
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Conlan, Bernard




Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Hannam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cox, Thomas
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Prescott, John


Cryer, G. R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n &amp; F'sb'ry)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tarn
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Sinclair, Sir George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Tomlinson, John


Edge, Geoff
MacArthur, Ian
Townsend, C. D.


Emery, Peter
Magee, Bryan
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Weatherill, Bernard


Evans, John (Newton)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ford, Ben
Newton, Tony (Braintree)



Gilbert, Dr. John
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ovenden, John
Mr. Ernle Money and


Hall, Sir John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Phillip Whitehead.


Hamling, William
Palmer, Arthur





NOES


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Beith, A. J.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cope, John
Lipton, Marcus
Steel, David


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Moate, Roger
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


English, Michael
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Freud, Clement
Redmond, Robert
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


George, Bruce
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Heffer, Eric S.
Royle, Sir Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Horam, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Jessel, Toby
Snape, Peter
Mr. Patrick Cormack.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report.

HOUSE OF COMMONS CAR PARKING

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services in their Second Report."—[Mr. Bottomley.]

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The House ought to be acquainted with what it is doing in being called upon to decide whether to accept the Second Report. According to paragraph 33 on page 11:
The cost of operating the underground car park will fall upon the House of Commons vote and its control will be the responsibility of the Serjeant at Arms.
It goes on to say that it will be necessary to put the work out to contract, and according to paragraph 34 the contractor's staff will have to
undergo training and familiarisation with the special needs of the House in the underground car park where their duties will be

very different from work in other car parks outside.
The Committee expresses the hope
that the underground car park should not be brought into use until 1st October 1974.
I very much doubt whether the work will be completed by then. There have been many delays for a variety of reasons. The final cost has not yet been estimated. The cost was to have been £1·3 million, but it is already twice that amount and we still do not know what we are letting ourselves in for. That is why I have grave doubts as to whether the Second Report should be accepted.

12 midnight.

Mr. Roger Moate: I wish merely to make one inquiry of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) concerning the car parking provision in that part of the present space provided in Old Palace Yard. I understand from the report that this will be used primarily for House of Lords car parking. But it is obvious that, at times, severe congestion arises round St. Stephen's entrance, with many hon. Members coming into the House for Divisions.
May we be told whether provision will be made for the large number of cars which drop off and pick up Members and


visitors, and whether space will be provided for cars coming in when Members are taking part in Divisions?

12.1 a.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton), I wish to draw attention to a matter to which this House will agree if it approves of the report.
I welcome the new arrangement which is proposed for the little courtyard at the back of New Palace Yard which is known as Mr. Speaker's Court. Any hon. Member who has ever dared park his car there without being one of the privileged class who are supposed to use it will know what happens.
Perhaps I may recount what happened to me when I parked my car there about a year ago. First, an attendant told me that I could not park there. I asked him what rule said that I could not, and I was told that the Serjeant at Arms said that I could not. Naturally enough, my rejoinder was that I made rules for the Serjeant at Arms, and not the other way round.
Being the cussed sort of person I am, from then on I insisted on parking my car in Mr. Speaker's front garden. Then a policeman left a very respectful note on my windscreen which said:
Sir, do not park your car here again.
The next day when I parked it there, I had a communication from the Inspector of Police, who told me that it had always been the case that Members like me could not park their cars there. Everyone else accepted it. Why did not I? I asked what was his authority for this. He said that it had always been the case. I told him to report back to his superiors that I intended to continue to park there until my attention was drawn to a rule to which I had contributed.
Following that, I was sent for by none other than my Chief Whip. After 15 minutes of conversation, I made it clear that I did not feel that it was appropriate to be whipped upon such a matter.
Next, I had a half-hour discussion with Mr. Speaker's secretary, and the final stage was that I had a very pleasant drink with Mr. Speaker.
I have never come across anything like it since first hearing Stanley Holloway's monologue entitled, "Sam, Sam, pick up thy musket". Since then I have occasionally parked my car in Mr. Speaker's Court to emphasise that the rules of this building must be made by the Members.
There is a more serious message, however. As a result, the rules were studied. According to rules which were never made formally but just grew up over the years, the list of those who could use Mr. Speaker's Court was found to be extremely long. It seemed to include absolutely everyone in the House except me.
I am glad to say that this mighty matter was referred to the Services Committee, and clearly it has looked into it very carefully. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the Committee's very sensible recommendation, first, that there should in future be no distinction drawn between Privy Councillors, who were one of the privileged class in the past in this respect, and other Members; and, second, that no distinction should be drawn between Ministers and other Members.
Every time the House comes across a distinction being drawn between the prefects in this House and the "fags" it ought to react and stop such a distinction being drawn. I am glad to see that that little incident has resulted in this modest advance of democracy and egalitarianism in the matter of car parking. I thank my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Services Committee for achieving that.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I would wish to comment briefly on the Second Report of the House of Commons Services Committee.
I was very impressed with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Listening to his comments I felt that he appeared to be the odd man out, who wants to be the odd man in so far as Mr. Speaker's Court is concerned. I recognise that the accommodation in Mr. Speaker's Court is ultimately a matter for Mr. Speaker's decision, as indicated in paragraph 16 of the report.
I am aware that the Lord President of the Council has thoughts in that regard.

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is not what our hon. Friend said.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was indicating the difficulties with which he found himself confronted as a result of the fact that the Speaker exercises the decision as regards who should use Mr. Speaker's Court in terms of the allocation of car parking space.
In this regard the Lord President of the Council has some thoughts on this matter which he would wish to place before Mr. Speaker on the proposals for restricting the parking of ministerial cars in Mr. Speaker's Court before any final decision is made.
My other comments concern the recommendation in paragraph 7 of the report that car parking in Broad Sanctuary should be retained for parliamentary use after the underground car park has come into operation. We all appreciate the difficulties which hon. Members, and particularly staff, suffer when the House sits late. If the House so wishes we can arrange for parking to remain available in Broad Sanctuary, on a strictly temporary basis. I am bound to point out, however—and I hope every hon. Member of the House will agree—that this important site in the very heart of our capital city cannot remain indefinitely as an open air car park. Various proposals have been made about its future from time to time since the war. It is unnecessary for me to discuss them now, except to say that car parking on the present basis is not one of them. For that reason alone we could accept the recommendation only as a temporary expedient.
There is also a more fundamental point. Much has changed since the House first considered the possibility of building the underground car park. Not the least of these is the general attitude towards the use of private cars for travelling to work in cities, and particularly in London. I noted the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) in this regard. As a reflection of this changed attitude the Greater London Council is pursuing policies aimed at restricting such use as far as possible. We and our predecessors have co-operated by, for example, restricting parking in the Royal Parks.

Against that background, I must ask the House to consider very carefully whether we can possibly justify any addition to our present net parking capacity of 760.
It is true that those who really need their cars to get home after late night sittings rarely add to rush hour congestion, but, despite the confidence expressed in paragraph 10 of the report, that our needs are well understood, it would be folly to ignore the considerable criticisms both from within and outside the House when it was decided to build the car park. I suspect that there will be considerably more criticism now that it has been built at a cost of £5,000 or so for each individual car parking space. The car park, however, is now a fact.
In general, I accept the proposed allocation of car spaces recommended in the report. For the future, I hope that the Services Committee will give further consideration to the possibility of finding other means of getting people home who live at a distance, rather than that we should appear to encourage yet a further proliferation of private cars.
It is expected that the underground car park will come into operation by 1st October.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: There is still one point to which the Minister did not reply. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the report do not make sense. Paragraph 33 says that Government or House of Commons staff will not be able to operate the car park, because
The special requirements of parliamentary use demand a high standard of servicing"—
that is a fine comment on Her Majesty's Government—
and the attendants will need to be highly skilled at their job.
The implication is that any attendants employed by the House of Commons would not be.
Paragraph 34 says:
It will be necessary, once the contract has been let, for the contractors' staff to undergo training and familiarisation with the special needs of the House. …
In other words, they are incompetent. These attendants cannot be employed by the Government or the House or the Parliamentary Commissioner because people from outside are more skilled, yet when they are employed they will have to be


trained by the Government because they are not skilled enough. Paragraph 33 simply contradicts paragraph 34. I hope that this point will be answered.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Although the report gives what the Committee was advised were the minimum requirements for car parking in and around the Palace of Westminster for Members and staff, it also makes recommendations about allocation. I stress that we shall be watching the situation as it develops. I think that that takes care of some of the Minister's observations.
The Minister said that we could have the temporary use of Broad Sanctuary for the staff and others until it was built over or laid out as an open space. The Services Committee, as the servant of the House, is content with that, because it looks as if we shall have the use of it for at any rate the foreseeable future.
The Committee will also take note of the points raised in the debate and listen to representations from users in future. That takes care of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who said that the Committee was out of touch with Members. I think that it will get plenty of advice from hon. Members as experience develops in the use of the car park.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked whether arrangements for hon. Members arriving for Divisions at St. Stephen's entrance would be in any way altered by what we are proposing. The answer, as I see it, is "No".

Mr. Moate: I was saying that the present arrangements are increasingly unsatisfactory, and that a larger number of cars than ever before seem to congregate there. The police are helpful, but there is congestion there which I should have thought could be relieved by allocating a small part of the yard for temporary parking at least.

Mr. Cooke: There is a small part reserved for visiting ambassadors. Unless they are all there when there is a sudden Division, there should not be too much congestion. But we appreciate that there

are certain problems in some places, and St. Stephen's entrance is certainly one.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) retailed his interesting experience at the hands of Mr. Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms. We recognise that Speaker's Court is part of Mr. Speaker's territory, and the Services Committee, being the servant of the House, is charged with the job of advising Mr. Speaker on matters connected with it. Mr. Speaker asked our advice on how he could be assisted in making the best use of that courtyard.
In times gone by Mr. Speaker enjoyed the use of a substantial mansion as part of the Palace of Westminster, and from an historical point of view there were Speaker's Court, Speaker's Green and Speaker's Steps. As for Mr. Speaker's House, it has been considerably truncated over the years, and the Library and other Departments have benefited immensely by successive Mr. Speakers giving up parts of Mr. Speaker's House. If we regard the State rooms as being common to all and used for public purposes, there is practically nothing left in Mr. Speaker's House in terms of his own personal purview.
Although it is necessary for the Serjeant at Arms to live on the premises, his residence has been cut down to the absolute minimum. A large room was cut off not long ago and is now used for State occasions by Mr. Speaker.
If hon. Members experience difficulties or trouble with Departments of the House they have a remedy in appealing to the Chairman of the Services Committee. He will, I am sure, do his best to investigate particular problems. When there is difficulty between an hon. Member and a member of the staff it must be remembered that the member of staff is doing his duty. If we have not given that member of staff the correct instructions we ought to look at the matter.
We do not want to be inflexible in the running of the car park, and we shall review the system after it has operated for a full Session.
If I dare mention the Serjeant at Arms again, the report of the Services Committee says that it may be necessary for him to make suitable ad hoc parking arrangements on certain occasions on a temporary basis. Adjustments of this


kind will have to be notified to the Services Committee and the whole picture will be reviewed after a full Session.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Second Report.

PARLIAMENTARY ACCOMMODATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Third Report.—[Mr. Bottomley.]

12.19 a.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I do not wish to delay the House at this late hour, but the report of the Services Committee contains matters which should be discussed. I begin by declaring an interest. I have a most pleasant office at No. 1 Bridge Street, overlooking Boadicea and her chariot, and I am rather reluctant to depart from those premises. I consider No. 1 Bridge Street a fine building. The report contains a proposal that the Bridge Street premises should be vacated in the near future. What will happen to those premises? Are they simply to be left vacant and to deteriorate and become an eyesore at an important site in the centre of London?
As far as we know, no decision has been taken by the Government about when, if at all, we are to proceed with the new parliamentary building. While indecision remains regarding the new parliamentary building it would be wrong to vacate what I would argue to be good quality accommodation at No. 1 Bridge Street. I cannot argue the same view about Palace Chambers. My impression is that those premises are not of the same standard as No. 1 Bridge Street.
No doubt the accommodation problem has been made more acute by the damage to the Westminster Hall offices, and presumably there is now an increased need for extra accommodation for Members and secretaries. Surely, therefore, it makes much more sense to provide the Norman Shaw (North) premises for secretaries and to maintain the premises at No. 1 Bridge Sheet for the

use of Members. To take this type of decision now without having any idea when we are going to the new parliamentary building is wrong. I ask the Services Committee, in view of the new circumstances resulting from the bomb damage, whether it should not think again about the use of No. 1 Bridge Street. Paragraph 7 of the report reads:
It is essential that No. 1 Bridge Street and Palace Chambers should be evacuated by Members at the same time as Norman Shaw (North) becomes available for occupation because staff and facilities including telephone lines will have to be removed from these two premises …".
I cannot believe that a large number of staff is needed to run No. 1 Bridge Street. That is not an overwhelming argument. Wherever those Members are they will require servicing by a certain number of staff. If the exterior of No. 1 Bridge Street were cleaned up it would be regarded by many people as a very fine building. As it stands, the interior is worthy of preservation. I believe that we are making a mistake in committing the building to dereliction. I do not believe that Parliament should take such a decision without giving it far greater consideration than it has so far received.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I support what the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said. It appears that no one who is directly affected by the report has been consulted. Paragraph 7.1 reads:
Members and Secretaries now in No. 1 Bridge Street and Palace Chambers should be transferred to Norman Shaw (North) at a date to be agreed with them. ….
When are the people who now use No. 1 Bridge Street and Palace Chambers going to be consulted? It appears that no consultation has taken place. It is not yet known when No. 1 Bridge Street and Palace Chambers should be closed. It is not yet known when the Norman Shaw (North) building will be occupied. We are being asked, in effect, to buy a pig in a poke. I think that the Members and secretaries directly concerned should have the opportunity to express their views on the proposals contained in the report.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly, but I wish to put in a word for


the under-privileged who are accommodated in Dean's Yard. What is not clear to me—I hope that we shall have some assurance tonight—is what will be the result for those who are not mentioned specifically in the report. I assume that the occupants of Dean's Yard will be entitled to put in for a transfer to some of the extra accommodation which will be created by the Norman Shaw (North) project, but that is not clear. I assume that that is covered by paragraph 7.3.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House the real problems which many hon. Members face in, as it were, the outer suburbs of Dean's Yard. We are working seven to an office. Any hon. Member who drops into our office when we are all on the telephone will appreciate the problem. The nearest comparison I can think of is a betting shop. I hope that it is not a situation that will continue indefinitely. I am willing to receive an assurance tonight, but if that is not forthcoming I urge the Committee to hoist on board this problem with all speed.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. James Lamond: The report which we are now considering should not be the subject of lengthy debate as the Committee, in Paragraph 2, gives a description of the existing accommodation for the benefit of new Members. If we look further into the report we see that Paragraph 3 reads:
In the opinion of some Members many rooms which are now shared, including those in Commons Court which were furnished specifically for use by two Members, should be occupied by one person only. If this is the general view of the House such infilling will not solve the overall problem …
I suggest that the inclusion of that sentence means that the Committee is anxious to obtain the observations of hon. Members on the desirability of single rooms.
There seems to be some method of promotion among back benchers. One starts some distance from the House, sharing a room with three, four or more hon. Members, and is then gradually promoted, until one reaches the stage that I have now reached, of sharing with a delightful companion a room in the precincts of this building. But, like the community at large, increasing affluence whets the appetitie for even more affluence. Having achieved the distinc-

tion of sharing a room with one companion, notwithstanding her attractiveness, I prefer a room of my own.
If the Committee is indeed asking a question, my reply is that it should, as far as possible, endeavour to provide a single room for each hon. Member of this House.
The Committee, in paragraph 4 of the report, states that
Private Members occupy 70 single rooms within the precincts".
That is a very small proportion of the total number of private Members. I know that there are single rooms outside the precincts, but, ideally, we should have a single room for each Member within the precincts. It may not be possible to achieve that ideal. However, we should make it clear that that is what we would like.

Mr. Moate: I have asked many hon. Members who have desks in the Cloisters—who possibly fall into the category of Members sharing rooms—about this matter. Most of them expressed the view that they would rather have their desks in the Cloisters than offices of their own in either the new parliamentary building or Norman Shaw (North). The Committee should take their views into account and not automatically accept that all hon. Members want their own offices.

Mr. Lamond: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. The Committee is asking for views. I can speak only for myself in this respect. I felt it was valuable for the Committee to know that at least one hon. Member was anxious to have a room of his own.

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: As a Member who has a room in Bridge Street and a secretary in Dean's Yard I can sympathise with many of the points that have been made.
We have an eminently fine building in Bridge Street, and the accommodation within it is good. The rooms are reasonably large, and certainly soundproof, which is more than can be said of some of the accommodation in this building.
If hon. Members are prepared and willing to work at No. 1 Bridge Street, as I am and as many secretaries are, they should be allowed to do so. It would


be an act of gross irresponsibility for Parliament, at a time of national difficulties and when accommodation is not easy to supply, to give up a building of the standard of No. 1 Bridge Street. Many secretaries have worked there for 10 years or more and are quite happy to continue there.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer) indicated assent.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman's wife is one of those who has worked in that building for a long time. I know that she is happy there. It seems quite stupid to turf her out, or to turf me out for that matter.
I am in favour of the Norman Shaw building. If asked, I should be quite prepared to go there and allow another hon. Member to move into Bridge Street. I do not object to the extra distance from this place. I like the Norman Shaw building—I find it aesthetically pleasing—and should be happy to take my secretary there, not to leave her in Dean's Yard.
We cannot afford to close the Bridge Street building. I am still opposed to the new parliamentary building—indeed, all the arguments deployed a year ago about extravagance and expense are even more telling now—but even its most fervent advocate would agree that, in current circumstances, it is unlikely that work on it will be started for at least four or five years.
Why, therefore, should we move from Bridge Street where many hon. Members and secretaries are perfectly happy? Why not keep that accommodation in good repair? Most of the rooms need only a lick of paint. If we do that we shall be meeting the extremely important point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham. East (Mr. Lamond). Every hon. Member, if he wishes, should have the opportunity of occupying a private room. If he does not want one, fair enough. If a Member prefers to stay in this building and occupy a desk in the cloisters than walk a couple of hundred yards across the road to a private room, that is a privilege which should be accorded to him. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have homes in London, or have interests in and around London, and who prefer to work from their homes or City offices. Such people want only a desk,

and I do not object to that. But if we keep Bridge Street, Norman Shaw and Dean's Yard, every hon. Member who wants a private room can have one. That would meet the hon. Member's point. So whatever we do with Norman Shaw, let us keep Bridge Street and do not let us set a bad example to the nation at a time like this by deserting a building which is structurally sound and which can provide excellent accommodation and, moreover, in which many people are extremely happy.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I do not normally intervene in debates of this sort, but on this occasion I was incensed by the report, not so much by what it did contain but by what it did not. I wonder how many members of the Services Committee have been to Dean's Yard and seen the totally inadequate space allocated to secretaries, the papers all over the floor because there is no place to store them, no filing cabinets to put them in, and no cupboards. Yet here we are considering closing a building which could be put to good use, is popular, and where the people who are in it want to stay there.
The Services Committee might be comfortable, but there are many people who operate from London, perhaps representing constituencies many miles away, who are totally inadequately provided for, and the closure of the building would only make the situation worse.

12.33 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps it will help if I say a word now and try, on behalf of the Committee, to deal with some of the points that have been raised. May I first, however, deal with the question of the people who are to be hired from outside to run our underground car park—people who are skilled in car parking? These people have learned their skills outside on car parks. They will have to be trained in the ways of the House of Commons, and that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I am sorry I did not deal with the point before. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter with us we shall be prepared to do so.
It is the constant aim of the Committee to improve the facilities for hon. Members.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Before the hon. Member leaves the point about the car park, may we be clear about the precise nature of the deal entered into with what I presume to be a private supervising firm? If possible, will the hon. Member give us the name of the firm?

Mr. Cooke: It would probably be out of order to pursue the matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) was making a passing reference to our previous discussion. I allowed him to go on, but he was strictly out of order. No doubt he can see the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) at another time.

Mr. Cooke: In attempting to help the House I have put us into a difficulty, and I must not say another word on the subject. When hon. Members read HANSARD they will see that they will be able to pursue the points they wish to pursue in another way and get the answers they seek.
It is the constant aim of the Committee, which is a servant of the House, to improve facilities for hon. Members and to do so as near the Chamber as possible, at the same time ensuring that those members of our hard-working staff, to whom we might give a little thought for having kept them here late tonight, who have to be within call of the Chamber, are decently provided for. I hope that hon. Members will study paragraph 12 of the report. It outlines a complete refurbishment of all the staff mess rooms near the Chamber. That matter is being attended to.
Some of us remember coming here and and being given a small cupboard, often at floor level. That was all we got. We have come a long way since then, with the help and pressure of hon. Members. When I arrived in the House it was not considered decent to ask for anything more than the cupboard. Now there are many Private Members' rooms within the precincts.
In-filling, which is not popular with all hon. Members, can help, and has helped. More is possible, and the Committee is still exploring this and aims to provide more space close at hand.
There are two factors that we must consider. There is a limit to the violence we can do to this historic building. I see the Minister nodding his assent. He is its jealous guardian, with his officials. They are always helpful in looking at our schemes, which are not dreamt up by the Committee but are often suggested by hon. Members. No hon. Member need fear that if he writes to the Chairman of the Committee his scheme will not be looked into. But we must consider the nature of the building and the high cost of alterations.
After the fire adjoining Westminster Hall we may be able to improve the gutted rooms to provide more and better accommodation. There will be that accidental plus. We acknowledge that it is not possible to provide for all our needs within the precincts. The Committee has been active in securing outbuildings, referred to flatteringly or unflatteringly by hon. Members, until such time as permanent supplementary accommodation, such as the new parliamentary building, becomes a reality. We have No. 6 and No. 7, Old Palace Yard, and No. 3, Dean's Yard, which is a fine building with good facilities, although overcrowded. We intend to retain both those buildings.
I come to Bridge Street and Palace Chambers, which stand on the site of the proposed new parliamentary building. Some of us have our reservations about that building, and I voted against it, particularly on aesthetic grounds. The present buildings on that site look superficially sound. Some are sounder than others, but they are expensive to maintain. I hope that the Minister will intervene if he disagrees, but I think that he will not, because I think that we are at one on this, as we say it on the basis of advice. Some of the buildings are in need of massive works if they are to have a reasonable life, and all the money spent would be wasted if the new parliamentary building were built.
There is also the question of staffing. We are told that we cannot obtain sufficient extra staff of sufficient quality. We are already overstretching staff to cover Bridge Street and Palace Chambers and now we are faced with Norman Shaw.
There is one even more vital point. Hon. Members might say, "Hire staff", but we know that the quality of staff we


require—I will not go into the details here—is not easy to obtain, and the staff must be trained. But one of the real difficulties is the question of telephone lines. We do not have enough lines on the House of Commons exchange to provide for a service to Bridge Street, Palace Chambers and Norman Shaw (North). It cannot be done. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Get some more."] We made massive provision for extra telephones, and they have all been mopped up. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not enough."] The hon. Gentleman is right, and we are making provision for more. There are time lags in these matters. There are not enough lines to keep these buildings going at the same time.

Mr. Cormack: I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulties, but, with the greatest respect, that is an argument I cannot accept. It seems fatuous in the extreme. We talk as if the £30 million parliamentary building is a realistic proposal, with all the telephone lines we need for it. A year ago we were even talking of its being ready in three years' time—in other words, about two years from now. In spite of that, my hon. Friend says that we cannot maintain Bridge Street. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument that it is impossible to find staff. The staff that we need at Bridge Street are not highly qualified. They are nice people, they do a good job and they are courteous in the extreme, but we are not looking for first-class honours graduates, and I do not think that it should be beyond the wit of man to find enough people to man Bridge Street.

Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend is entitled to his point of view. I beg him to consider the question of security in that building. We do not want to debate that here now.
I can help those who are hostile to the idea of moving out of Bridge Street and Palace Chambers to Norman Shaw—which is what the report says should be done and which I believe should be done—by saying that when Bridge Street and Palace Chambers are given up by the House of Commons they will return to the Department of the Environment, to which they belong. What is done with the buildings then will be a matter of debate, and it will be open to the House, if it so wishes, and to hon. Members to make

representations to the Department of the Environment about some future use for those buildings.
This may seem a strange way of proceeding, but the difficulties which I have outlined make it necessary to make this move now. The Minister is nodding his assent, but I do not know whether he wants to intervene. If one wants to make representations that the buildings should be retained for longer than some think they should, the matter can be looked at again.

Mr. David Steel: May I, as a former colleague on the Services Committee, ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm that when the original decision was taken to recommend the use of the Norman Shaw building it was in the context of the decision taken by the House of Commons to proceed with the new parliamentary building? If that building is to be delayed, for good reason or for bad, clearly the Services Committee ought to have another think about the evacuation of the buildings adjacent to the House

Mr. Cooke: I thought that I had given the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who was such a valued colleague on the Services Committee for so long, the answer to that. He says that these buildings—Bridge Street, Palace Chambers and the others there—should be looked at again, and there is no reason why that should not be done in the light of our experience, but the report says that there should be a tidy operation to get Members—some of whom are reasonably well placed in Bridge Street, but others are not—to go into Norman Shaw.
If Members feel unable to move to Norman Shaw, they should get in touch with their Whips, who look after accommodation matters.
Norman Shaw (North) was formerly the police headquarters and is named after the architect, Norman Shaw. It might be worth saying that the Royal Fine Art Commission, which has been unkindly treated this evening, and every amenity society deplored its possible demolition when a huge Government office complex would have wiped it out, and Richmond Terrace, too. The House of Commons can claim some credit, and I


hope that hon. Members will join me in doing so, for the fact that, as a result of pressure in the House, these fine buildings were saved.
We have first-class accommodation for about 128 Members and 130 secretaries, and not in crowded conditions. The Deputy Chief Whips of the Labour and Conservative Parties have inspected the building, and they will bear me out when I say that the conditions there are very much better than those in which most Members work in almost every other place.
The work of preparation is going ahead smoothly, and it is intended—this is the answer to some of the worries hon. Members have—to invite hon. Members who will be moving from Bridge Street and Palace Chambers to view the new accommodation the week after next, and those hon. Members will be receiving letters inviting them so to do, together with other useful information, from the Serjeant at Arms. So those in Bridge Street and Palace Chambers will be given the first chance in Norman Shaw (North). If they wish to reconsider their position and make some other application, they will be entitled to do so, but they will be given the first chance to look at the new accommodation and they will be given priority in its allocation. All other Members of the House will be able to view the new accommodation shortly, but after those who are to be moved out of Bridge Street and Palace Chambers. An announcement about that will be made through the usual channels.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend say whether, before the examination of Norman Shaw (North), the Services Committee examined in considerable detail the alternatives of keeping Palace Chambers and Bridge Street, and was it advised that the cost of this would be well over £100,000 more in tarting the place up?

Mr. Cooke: Yes, indeed. Several schemes were considered. The minutes of evidence, if not published, are not confidential, and the Services Committee could no doubt arrange for Members to be informed about this. There were two aspects. One was whether it was worth while to do a decorative tidying up. A decorative tidying up is what has been

done to Norman Shaw (North), together with installing some new lifts and many other services. The Minister will confirm that it has cost a prodigious sum. The cost has run over a million pounds, but we believe that the expenditure will be worth while in providing accommodation for a period of years.
Consequential on the acquisition of Norman Shaw (North), some reorganisation within the Palace will be possible and further accommodation near the Chamber can be relinquished by staff for the use of Members in due course—and that means during the course of next year. The Services Committee is always on the look-out for further opportunities to place Members closer to the Chamber, thus bringing about greater convenience and efficiency generally.
If hon. Members have any ideas and will put them to the Chairman of the Services Committee or to myself or other members of the Committee, all ideas will be investigated; because some very useful ideas have come, not from official quarters, but from hon. Members who know the building and its difficulties well.
Norman Shaw (North) will provide two small broadcasting studies—this is in the report—and they will enable Members to be interviewed by BBC and ITV without the necessity of travelling long distances. One can go to College Mews in the rain and see the BBC, but if one wants to go to the ITV companies one must go a very long way, very often, or out into the air.
These will be studios for radio and television for the two networks. They will come into operation, we trust and pray, in the middle of the next year. I cannot be precise about the date. They will be an extension of the facilities of the House and thus come under the same rules as other Press facilities. That is important. If hon. Members will study those words, they will realise what they mean.
I hope that the House will find that there is quite a lot that is encouraging in the report if they read it carefully. I have tried to answer the questions that have been asked.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind to the problem of Dean's Yard? He accepted that there is overcrowding there. Can he give some


assurance with regard to the secretaries and Members now in Dean's Yard?

Mr. Cooke: I have two hon. Friends helping me! I have been asked whether the Committee could do something about the overcrowding in Dean's Yard. The answer is, "Certainly", because the acquisition of Norman Shaw (North) means that we shall be able to make a number of adjustments. However, I cannot help my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) by altering the distance, though we appreciate the fact that it is a long way, and we are seeking to provide more accommodation near to the centre. I have said that several times—perhaps too often—in the course of these remarks.

Mr. John Prescott: One of the problems about Dean's Yard is that there are some Members who are in reasonable accommodation and some are not. The same is true of secretaries. If there are those who are in Dean's Yard and do not wish to move elsewhere, will they be allowed to remain there?

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[12.51 a.m.


Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bates, Alf
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gray, Hamish
Pavitt, Laurie


Cocks, Michael
Hamllng, William
Prescott, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cope, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Cox, Thomas
Jessel, Toby
Sinclair, Sir George


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Knox, David
Steel, David


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Emery, Peter
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


English, Michael
Magee, Bryan
Weatherill, Bernard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Mr. Phillip Whitehead


Freud, Clement
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
and Mr. Ernle Money.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Banks, Robert
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Lipton, Marcus



Cormack, Patrick
Moate, Roger
TELLERS EOR THE NOES:


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Ovenden, John
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Edge, Geoff
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Mr. Russell Kerr.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Third Report.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): If there is no objection, shall put a single Question on the remaining motions.

Mr. Cooke: I do not think that I have been obscure. The report makes it clear that we propose that those Members in Bridge Street and Palace Chambers should move into Norman Shaw, or into some other building, if they can persuade their respective parties to agree to this. No one will be forced to leave Dean's Yard or Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard. If there are overcrowding representations they will be able to take their chance with the other applicants for better accommodation. I know that the two main parties do their best to satisfy all their members. The minority parties are reasonably well looked after in this House. We shall continue to look after their interests.
Perhaps I might be allowed to sit down, at last, after saying that we shall continue our efforts. We are currently exploring further improvements to our facilities within the Palace, which, with the ready co-operation of the Minister of State and his Department, could become a reality before too long.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 14.

Motions made, and Questions put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order (Statutory Instruments):

TRANSPORT

That the Carriage by Railway (Revision of Convention) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS

That the Royal Ordnance Factories Trading Fund Order 1974, a draft of which was laid


before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

That the Asian Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the Central Treaty Organization (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the Customs Co-operation Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the European Space Research Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

That the United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harrison.]

AIRCRAFT NOISE

1.2 a.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter which is of great concern to many of my constituents and to a large number of people beyond the boundaries of my constituency. I refer to the problem of aircraft noise—a problem which nobody with any personal experience of living under the noise shadow of a major airport would dream of belittling This is a serious problem which causes a great deal of human suffering, ruins people's quiet enjoyment of houses and gardens, interrupts the work of schools, churches, hospitals and offices, and interferes with people's private lives, their telephone conversations, their opportunities to listen to gramophone records or watch television.
It must be said that some people do not mind aircraft noise very much, but to a large proportion of people it is a major nuisance and to a substantial number it causes suffering and in some cases mental ill health. It is a major social evil in the communities affected by it.
In reply to a question which I put to the Under-Secretary of State on this matter two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate referred to aircraft noise as a pestilence. He was absolutely right and was not exaggerating at all. The hon. Gentleman is known in the House for his great concern for social problems and the avoidance of human suffering in matters such as housing, and he is well aware from the voluminous correspondence which he has had with me on aircraft noise how much suffering exists. I hope that he will take every possible action he can to relieve the lot of my constituents and to mitigate this nuisance, despite the undoubted technical difficulties. I hope that he will be able to assure me that he and the Secretary of State for Trade will not flinch from placing the peace, quiet and health of people around airports above any commercial interests.
This problem is compounded by the great growth in traffic through Heathrow Airport. The British Airways Authority estimated in 1973 that 27 million passengers passed through the airports of South-East England during the year, and it projected the 1985 figure as 84 million, almost a three-fold increase. No one who has studied the problem is in doubt that the oil crisis will cause no more than a temporary hesitation in the graph reflecting the upward trend of air travel.
I suggest seven main areas of action. The first and most popular among people who have not studied the problem is the quietening of engines, thus dealing with noise at the source. There has been talk about this for years, and it is highly desirable in principle, but it is not enough. It is limited in scope and I am sceptical about how much can be achieved, especially in the short term. It is true that some quieter aircraft are coming along.

Mr. James Allason: My hon. Friend has spoken of quieter aircraft. Is it not more appropriate to say "less noisy aircraft"?

Mr. Jessel: I agree wholeheartedly. Two years ago, I and others in the House suggested to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he should use his influence with BEA, as it was, to buy quieter or less noisy aircraft. We were pleased when a few weeks later BEA announced that it would buy Lockheed TriStars. However, four adverse factors are involved.
First, the life of an aircraft is about 20 years. Many of the 62 airlines using Heathrow continue to receive deliveries of Boeings and other very noisy aircraft to orders recently placed. Secondly, the quietening of existing aircraft by hush kits is much easier said than done. There is little to show for the already large sums spent, and I remain unconvinced until we have definite evidence to the contrary that any major advance can be made in this way.
Thirdly, it is not just a matter of quietening the engines. The aircraft themselves make considerable noise passing through the air. Fourthly, and most important, it is the frequency of flights which people resent most. I believe that they resent the frequency more than the peak loundness of an individual aircraft.

People can tolerate 10 or 20 very noisy aircraft but they cannot take several hundred in a day, very often at peak hours every minute or two.
Already there are 600 movements in and out of Heathrow every day, and it is projected that by the late 1980s the figure will be 1,000. This is intolerable from the point of view not only of aircraft noise but of crash risk. As I pointed out two months ago, when the Secretary of State for Trade made a statement about the crash of the Turkish aircraft outside Paris, if it had crashed 20 minutes later it could well have done so on part of London—and the mind boggles at the thought of over 100 tons of metal, bodies and luggage ploughing through a heavily built-up area at several hundred miles an hour. A thousand flights a day is an unacceptable level of crash risk, quite apart from the noise involved.
That brings me to my second point, which is the Third London Airport. I am a strong supporter of Maplin. It must make sense to put an airport by the sea on land relaimed from the sea so that aircraft may take off and approach the airport for landing over the sea instead of over residential areas. What is more, the noisiest aircraft and all-night flights can be routed through it. Despite all that has been said in recent months, I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep an open mind on the matter, especially in the light of the aircraft noise problem.
Third, on Concorde, I was pleased to receive an assurance from the Secretary of State for Industry a few weeks ago that the Government would take the aircraft noise aspect into account when deciding on the future of Concorde.
My fourth point relates to bans on night flights. Here, some progress has been made since 1971, when, in the summer season, there were more than 1,600 night jet take-offs. That was reduced by five-sixths by the summer season of 1973 to 261. I should very much like to hear what further progress has been made in reducing still further the number of night jet take-offs.
Fifth, I suggest, as other hon. Members have done, that there should be a total ban on all traffic through Heathrow on Sundays. There should be one day a week when people could look forward to a total respite from aircraft noise. It


is reasonable that the interests of people on the ground should be put above those who wish to fly, at least on one day of the week.
My sixth point concerns soundproofing. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle), who I am very pleased to see attending this debate, despite the lateness of the hour, tabled an early-day motion two weeks ago, which I was glad to sign, urging that the system of sound-proofing grants be extended to the London borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, which embraces both his constituency and my own. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not argue that this is a complete answer to the problem, but at least as a matter of equity it could go some of the way to compensating those residents who suffer from aircraft noise and, as a consequence, from what is permitted by Parliament in the way of disturbance. It is right that the rest of the community should compensate householders by providing sound-proofing which would give some limited protection to those who choose to avail themselves of it.
Seventh, I refer to the distribution of flight paths. This is my final and main point for the purpose of this debate. My constituency is burdened by three flight paths on those days when, for safety reasons, aircraft take off from Heathrow towards the east against the prevailing wind.
There is the Dover 2 route, which is centred over Whitton, West Twickenham, Strawberry Hill and onwards over Richmond Park and my hon. Friend's constituency, towards the coast at Dover, as its name implies.
There is the Woodley route, which turns round 180 degrees to enable transatlantic flights to go in a westerly direction. I was glad to learn from a document recently published that the Civil Aviation Authority is now studying the possibility of routeing this to the north of Heathrow.
Then there is the Mole Valley route, which is used for southward destinations. Last week the Department of Trade published a consultative document suggesting a split in the Mole Valley route. I am not opposed to the idea of a split to

relieve the concentration of noise on those living under the present route, but I cannot support the split proposed in the document, for reasons I shall come to. I wish to propose what I believe is a fairer solution than that in the document. I say this without any disrespect to those who have worked on the document. In saying that I wish to produce another proposal I am fortified by paragraph 17 of the document, which reads:
The Department will be pleased … to consider any alternative proposals that are consistent with the Noise Advisory Council's report.
That report was published a month or two ago and gave rise to the consultative document.
The document suggests changing the Mole Valley route by moving half the traffic half a mile to the east and the other half of the traffic half a mile to the west; half the route would be centred over the Heathfield area, the Rivermeads, the west side of Hampton Hill and the centre of Hampton; the other half would be situated over Whitton, West Twickenham, Strawberry Hill and the centre of Teddington.
The hon. Gentleman has assured me both in reply to a Question some weeks ago and in a recent letter that full consultation will be carried out with all parties concerned. I regret to say that annex D of the document does not provide this quite as it should.
Astonishingly, Teddington, a town of some 15,000 people, has been left out, even though the document proposes to put a new flight path straight over it.
I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confirm, if I supply him with the necessary addresses, that he will consult the Teddington Society, the Strawberry Hill Residents' Association, the Hampton Wick Association, the Hampton Court Green Residents' Association, the Whitton Community Association, the Twickenham Green Residents' Association and the Hampton Residents' Association, in addition to those he has already listed in annex D, in addition to the Richmond upon Thames Borough Council.
I wish to criticise the proposed route split as being unsatisfactory because it is so narrow that it will not achieve the desired objective of dispersing the noise,


because its centre lines are only about 1 mile apart at the widest point, so that people in the middle hear both lots of noise, bearing in mind the width of the noise shadows. It will give hardly any benefit to Hampton Hill or Fulwell, which are two of the areas which suffer the worst under the present route. Whitton, West Twickenham and Strawberry Hill will suffer from increased noise although they have also to endure the Dover 2 route.
It would be more equitable to split the Mole Valley route rather more widely. I suggest half the traffic is put along a route to the west of Hampton over Han-worth Park, Kempton Park and the Queen Elizabeth Reservoir, slightly to the west of the route used prior to December 1971. I believe this would be fairer than the split proposed. It would bring limited relief to my constituency, which is now carrying far more than its fair share of the burden of noise.
I hope the Minister will look into this proposal with a fair and open mind.

1.19 a.m.

Sir Anthony Royle: I do not wish to hold the House more than a minute as I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) would wish to have the answers to the many points he has raised.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and also for allowing me to have a minute to add one major point to the very important points he has raised. I fully support everything my hon. Friend has said about double glazing, night flights, and most of the other of the first six points he made.
Regarding Concorde, I expressed my concern to the Minister about the reply he gave when he told me that the noise made by Concorde will be equivalent to that made by a Boeing 707. This, in the view of my constituents—and I assume that my hon. Friend would agree with me—is unacceptable. We must ask the manufacturers to reduce the noice to the level of the quieter jets using the airport today and not just to be satisfied with the noise running at the level of that made by the present Boeing 707.
One point not touched on by my hon. Friend is helicopter noise. People at one end of my constituency suffer very much from helicopter movements. Much of

the responsibility here rests with the GLC, but its attitude towards the environment of my constituents is totally unsatisfactory. It has tried in the past to drive motorways across my constituency. It has tried, and is succeeding, to flood one end of the constituency with juggernaut lorries, and now it has a proposal before it to increase the number of helicopter flights from Battersea Airport from 4,000 to 6,000 per annum, excluding emergency flights. The fact that the number of movements is double that figure shows the extent of the concern.
Although the Minister will not have time to deal with this matter tonight, I would ask him to look into it as soon as possible, because my constituents and I are very concerned.

1.22 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I think that it was by cutting into my time rather than that of his hon. Friend, that the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) was able to make his speech. I clearly will not be able to cover all the points that have been raised, but if any are missed, of course, I shall communicate with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this vexed question again. I was right to describe aircraft noise as a pestilence I do not know the hon. Gentleman's constituency, apart from the fact that I used to raise questions about it when in opposition.
To a major extent, this sort of noise detracts from the quality of life of those who suffer from it. This point was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade in a speech on Monday to the Airport Operators' Council International Conference. He said:
In my view if the air transport industry is to have a healthy and vigorous future it is essential that the high level of disturbance in areas around too many of the major airports throughout the world should first be mitigated and then progressively reduced.
This cannot be done overnight without unacceptable serious damage to the industry It must follow from a controlled and phased programme which is universally accepted
Thus, while the industry must recognise the yearnings for peace and quiet of those affected by aircraft noise and work towards the continued mitigation of those problems, those who live near airports,


unhappily, must accept that civil aviation is here to stay, that it provides benefits for millions of people throughout the world and that noise is an inevitable consequence. We must face this acute dilemma
The hon. Member mentioned the Mole Valley route, a matter which he has often raised in the House. On 10th April 1972 he advocated a change to two routes which passed over his constituency, with the express purpose of reducing the number of people exposed to aircraft noise. Largely as a result of those pressures, in July 1972 the more important of these routes—the Mole Valley route—was revised, but, regrettably, the results have fallen short of expectation.
It is an unhappy situation that often a well-intentioned initiative fails to bear fruit, and sometimes the temptation is to conclude that nothing more can be done. But in the case of aircraft noise, I believe that we must learn from experience, even from unhappy experience, and redouble our efforts to find ways of achieving a real advance. That is the view I take of the Mole Valley problem since I have been able to consider it.
We have the independent report of the Noise Advisory Council, which was set up largely because of the experience with the Mole Valley route, and we have had the opportunity to consider the position. This was one of my first tasks when I assumed office. We have to see how best we can implement those recommendations that appeared technically feasible and most likely to bring substantial alleviation to noise suffers.
I cannot discuss the report in depth in six minutes, but it is of direct relevance to the debate because it contained a specific recommendation that the Mole Valley route should be split in order to give a measure of relief to the worst affected areas to the south east of Heathrow, where several routes, of which the Mole Valley route is one, are concentrated. I regard this an an eminently sensible suggestion and, after a full evaluation by officials of the Department and of the Civil Aviation Authority, a route split consistent with the conditions contained in the report was formulated.
We have sent out a consultative document to Members of Parliament affected

and to local authorities with a direct interest in the matter, and to those amenity groups which submitted evidence about the Mole Valley route to the Noise Advisory Council during its investigation. I must stress, as I have done in correspondence, that we place the greatest emphasis on the importance of the need for full consultation. It does not mean that because we have identified a number of amenity groups other people are excluded. If people wish to submit their views we shall certainly consider them because, as I stress, consultation is the order of the day.
I do not want anyone to go away with the belief that we are seeking to impose new routes by stealth. There must and will be consultation.
I should like to go into more detail on the precise form that the route split should take, but I fear that I cannot. The essence of the matter is that we have to look at the recommendation and adjudge the response which the recommendation receives. There is nothing more I can usefully say in this respect in the time available, because there are a number of other points which the hon. Gentleman raised which I would like to deal with.

Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman able to look at the alternative proposal which I have put forward?

Mr. Davis: Of course we shall be able to look at the alternative proposal, but it has a number of drawbacks. I am certain that even some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends would be reluctant to accept the conclusions he has reached, but this matter falls within the ambit of consultation. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's suggested reservoir route, it should be pointed out that while this would transfer the burden in part from his constituency it would fall upon some of his neighbours, and that may not be totally acceptable.
The hon. Gentleman will know that steps are being taken in relation to quiet aircraft. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had given me more time to deal with this. British Airways are introducing the TriStar, and there is to be an increasing use by European carriers of the A.300B Airbus. Both of these are notably quiet aircraft. Steps are being undertaken by the Government


to modify the older types of jet aircraft, but this takes time. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect a remarkable reformation in days or even months.
We are looking at the noise insulation grants scheme—to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred—in the light of the recommendations made by the Noise Advisory Council, but I cannot promise a hasty reaction to it, because other Government Departments have to be consulted, as well as local authorities, and we have to see what the full repercussions would be of implementing all the recommendations of the Noise Advisory Council's report—

Sir Anthony Royle: How long will it take?

Mr. Davis: This is a matter of lengthy consultation upon which I cannot make a prediction at the moment. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are deeply affected, but this matter has tremendous repercussions. There are also other types of noise pollution to be considered.
Reference has been made to Maplin. It is impossible to anticipate what will be in the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend before the Summer Recess, but noise disturbance will figure largely in his considerations. My Department, the Department of Trade and the Government as a whole will have to consider this issue.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Concorde. That is a little academic at the moment. I do not want to get involved in comparisons between the various air

craft involved. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman along the lines that he suggested. There is, as he rightly said, a difference of view. I shall take carefully into account the views that he has expressed.
In the last minute and a half that is available to me I shall refer to helicopter noise. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that is the responsibility of the GLC rather than of the Government. The GLC is at present discussing with Westlands, the owners of Battersea Heliport, the number of flights to be allowed from the heliport this year. Last year the number of flights exceeded the number allowed by the GLC. Essentially that is a matter for the GLC, but we shall use our influence with the GLC to ensure that the point that the hon. Gentleman has made is taken into account.
We are trying to find quieter helicopter routes, with the help of the CAA. I hope that to some extent that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. I cannot prophesy that the noise problem will be overcome. It is a gradual process and each element in the noise abatement programme, although not always a major headline item, makes a major contribution—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having been continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock.